It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animal Testing

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
www.indymedia.org.uk...

Barclays Global Investors, Barclays Plc, Hartford Investment Management Company, Rice Hall James and Associates LLC and BNY Mellon have all sold their shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences.


I've googled this and haven't come across anything in the MSM.

 
Mod Note: Starting A New Thread – Please Review This Link

[edit on Fri May 15 2009 by Jbird]




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BetweenMyths
 

link from above

Here I’ll give ya a little boost to youe thread.


ABOUT HLS
Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) are the largest contract testing laboratory in Europe. They have about 70,000 animals on site, including rabbits, cats, hamsters, dogs, guinea-pigs, birds and monkeys. These animals are destined to suffer and die in cruel, useless experiments.

HLS will test anything for anybody. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colorings and additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms. Every three minutes an animal dies inside Huntingdon totaling 500 innocent lives every single day.



I’m not sure what point you're trying to make in this thread.

Does this bother you?
Are you concerned for animal welfare?
Is this a stock tip?
What would you like to add?
Something? Anything?


peace



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I would say that the OP is trying to do what the article is trying to do - get a company banned because of animal testing. The OP misleads by it's title. The reason they dropped HLS is because "HLS are now (once again) in breach of their listing standards on the NYSE ARCA, as their market value is now $10.9 million instead of the required $15 million."



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 



I would say that the OP is trying to do what the article is trying to do - get a company banned because of animal testing. The OP misleads by it's title.


Agreed on both - Though I was trying to get the Mr.Tight-Lipped OP to bust out with a thought or answer a question lol.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Yeah I knew what you were doing but I doubt BetweenMyths will be back to answer your questions. This thread was just a way to incite things.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I once nearly bought some HLS shares, just to spite the ALF and their ilk who (at the extremes) have acted very poorly.

The question is whether animal testing is worthwhile and a legitimate cause. I know it is highly emotive and causes some people to get overly stressed - on both sides of the argument.

Well, I don't get stressed about it. I think that the legal mechanisms to minimise unnecessary cruelty are satisfactory and that in some circumstances animal testing is necessary and right. There is often a stall for "anti testing" in Oxford and they show grotesque pictures of monkeys, but they admitted to me that the pictures came from the 60s so were portraying a past situation.

Don't get me started about the release of mink!

Regards



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join