Thomas Bromley (Letters, August 14) accuses me of "being loud against animal testing but remarkably quiet about the alternatives".

I suspect he realises my correspondence was edited and specific examples of methods other than animal testing were omitted, as were examples of drug catastrophes and my comments regarding the scientific community's vested interests in animal experimentation.

This community includes research institutions, universities, pharmaceutical companies and animal breeding establishments to name but a few and, worldwide, goes to great lengths to deceive the public and silence the voices of those who dare to question and demand answers.

To address Mr Bromley's point about beating hearts and so on, history shows that understanding of the circulatory system was delayed by misleading animal experiments and that human autopsy was responsible for observing and documenting the human circulatory system.

It is a total misconception that advances in surgical technique, treatment of disease and understanding of human physiology and anatomy would cease without animal testing.

Today there is an enormous amount of technology at the researcher's disposal which can predict far more accurately than animal studies and which can be utilised by all medical disciplines.

For example, cell viability testing can examine the effects of a drug on human cell cultures and subcellular activity analysis can test for changes in macromolecules and analyse biochemical responses.

There are now ways to practise operations without using a living human or animal.

Simulators can be used for teaching laparoscopic surgical skills and specific procedures. Autopsy studies, epidemiology, clinical observation and so on in themselves have led to great medical advancement.

Animal testing is used to provide a legal sanctuary for the pharmaceutical giants but is not necessary for progress.

I would rather any potential surgery or treatment be based on such alternative technology than on misleading and inaccurate animal models.

Serious illness has affected the lives of like-minded family and friends. The difference between me and Mr Bromley's organisation, Seriously Ill for Medical Research, is that I believe if the enormously profitable business of animal experimentation continues to mislead and deceive the public, many more humans will suffer and die.

Treating the adverse side-effects of drugs drains NHS resources. I want true science and better health.

For more information, readers can refer to Europeans for Medical Advancement (web sites are curedisease.net and navs.org), which will provide further information of a scientific and ethical nature.

The Humane Research Trust and Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research both fund research without animal experimentation.

-Sam Rillim, Lorna Road, Hove