IT seems Thomas Bromley in his letter to the Wiltshire Times (October 13), defending vivisection, is basing his opinions more on philosophical dogma than lived-reality.

The pro-vivisection lobby would rather the rest of us remain ignorant about scientific matters.

Here are a few examples: pig transplants parts/ cells have worrying side effects like all non-human animal/ human animal transfers; many well-known drugs tested on NHA have been proven dangerous; we have had 100 years of vivisection and bacteria and viruses are mutating faster than ever.

Human tissue with some pharmaceutical firms doing so and not using vivisection at all cultures and computer models can replace vivisection but suffer the same resistance as do organic/ sustainable farming, alternative ways of propelling motor vehicles and designing our buildings.

Mr Plimsoll in the 19th century was called a terrorist by those with vested interests because they saw his plimsoll-line as a threat to their profits.

What seems to drive vivisection is not concern for human health but the profits of the pharmaceutical/ chemical/ arms industry, supported by governments.

I could quote many objective working scientists but space is a premium so I to quote only one: "The problem with animal models is they do not mimic what happens to humans".

This is not new but has been known for many years, but it is more convenient to carry on in the same old way using false analogy the either/or ploy, anthropomorphism and not using the correct premise when debating the issue.

DAVID THOMAS,

Hisomley,

Near Westbury.