PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Test split into two opposing factions


paul
10-31-2006, 04:42 AM
The pro vivisection group called Pro-Test, brainchild of 16 year old Laurie Pycroft of Swindon, has split after only 9 months of existence. The split comes in light of rumours of acrimony in the Pro-Test camp.

As yet the reasons are still unclear, but a source within Oxford University has disclosed to Arkangel that it was due to "tactical" differences. According to the source, the split will comprise of a new group called 'Standing up for Science', whilst the group called Pro-Test will be maintained. As of yet there is no information as to who will be running the two groups now that the split has occurred.

Pro-Test began in late January of this year after it was reported that its founder, Laurie Pycroft, was so incensed at seeing a demonstration by the animal rights group SPEAK going past a shop he was in that he rushed out, bought an ink pen, and scribbled a hastily conceived slogan on a piece of cardboard: "Support Progress - build the Oxford Lab." Under the media spotlight, Laurie Pycroft became a much sought after news story and was soon courted by both the national and international media.

However many people believed that Laurie Pycroft was just being used as a pawn in a much larger game and it is strongly suspected that outside political interest groups were manipulating both Laurie Pycroft and the Pro-Test group.

According to a SPEAK spokesperson there had recently been rumours that there was "a clash of egos" in the Pro-Test camp and it is suspected that the reason of "tactical" differences is just a smokescreen to hide the real reason for the split. It is also known that many in the Pro-Test camp were concerned with Laurie Pycroft's public pronouncements concerning his support for the legalisation of drugs, his interest in guns and his propensity to visit sexually explicit sites. In a very early salvo during the early stages of the Pro-Test campaign, SPEAK, the group Pro-Test were initially set up to oppose, wrote a satirical piece about Laurie, his beliefs and his more obscure habits!

Despite receiving a vast amount of hate mail from those supporting Laurie Pycroft, SPEAK remain unrepentant of their satirical exposé of Laurie Pycroft, commenting: "What Laurie’s followers failed to grasp is that it was never meant to be an attack on a 16 year old boy, obviously the subtlety of the article was lost on them. What we wanted to highlight was the ludicrous nature of the British media who were holding up Laurie as some sort of paragon of virtue and a saviour of the vivisection industry but at the end of the day he is just a boy, with boyhood fantasies who we knew would soon disappear from sight once the media had finished with him."

The SPEAK spokesperson went onto say that the group had never taken Pro-Test seriously, "we knew it was just a passing fad, that’s why the only reference we ever made about him was a tongue in cheek article and we didn’t even bother naming him...that’s how insignificant we find the whole Pro-Test group and now that the group has split it would appear that we have been correct in our analysis all along."

Despite the massive media interest in Pro-Test, the group were never able to capitalise on the intense media publicity. The group's greatest achievement was in organising a march through Oxford. However, despite the fact that the group managed to organise a march comprising in the region of 700 people, it was a poor turnout considering the media coverage leading up to the march. It was, in fact, dwarfed by marches organised by SPEAK, who on April 22nd held a march through Oxford to mark 'World Day for Laboratory Animals', with a turnout of 1500 people who marched through the streets of Oxford City.

In an attempt to outmatch SPEAK, Pro-Test held another march in Oxford on the 3rd June. However, it was a dismal failure, with only 400 people attending. This embarrassing episode in the short life of Pro-Test effectively marked the end of the group, who were no longer favoured by the media and since June, nothing has been heard from or about Laurie Pycroft, which had led to speculation of a rift in the pro-vivisection camp.

It is as yet still unclear who will be joining which particular opposing group and Laurie Pycroft’s position in any of the groups is not known. Of interest will be the fate of Prof. John Stein and Prof. Tipu Aziz, who are both leading vivisectors at Oxford University and who acted as scientific advisors to Pro-Test and who now have to decide which faction they will join.

thevegantwins
10-31-2006, 05:25 AM
Is this good news? The article isn't clear since it doesn't discuss what that splinter group will be undertaking. I'm pretty confident that the pharmaceutical industry is funding these groups anyway.

paul
10-31-2006, 06:55 AM
its good that pro animal testers are arguing etc, im sure the pharmaceutical companys are funding etc.

Fauxmage
10-31-2006, 08:35 AM
I think when any group splinters, its a good thing. I can't help but feel sorry for Pycroft, though, who is awfully young, and will not emerge from this without being badly scarred. Its a shame when the big companies make pawns out of ignorant, naive people, and then cast them aside when they are through with them. Not really much different from the way they treat the animals they abuse, and all for the same goal: profit. When will people see the truth?

Gliondrach
10-31-2006, 11:44 AM
The drugs and medical research industries are controlled by cynical abusers of animals, both human and non-human. They will do anything to make a profit or to complete an experiment. As was proved in the Tuskegee Syphilis scandal when black men were kept away from treatment for syphilis for decades so that the course of the disease could be monitored. Some of the men died. Some infected their wives. And then there have been cases of drug researchers ignoring or hiding the results of drugs trials that they didn't like. And the bribing of physicians to endorse their drugs. And many cases of all sorts of corruption and criminal behaviour, such as using unwitting adults and children in experiments. These cases have all been documented. It is obvious that the companies have powerful political protection. These are the type of people who will be behind Pro-t est.