IN response to misleading letters attacking medical research, it is sad, but true, that many people seem to show more concern for animals than people.

It seems some would rather resort to psuedo-scientific nonsense rather than accept that medical advances don't actually appear out of thin air. People with life-threatening conditions are entitled to the right to hope and should come first in this argument.

I'd be interested to hear how they would respond to something like kidney failure. Would animals rights activists refuse the drugs, the transplant, the blood transfusions that would be needed to save their lives just because animals were used in the development of these treatments? I don't think so.

For those of us on the front line of medical research, the harsh reality is that animal rights are bad for our health. Now, we can either accept the opinion of 100 per cent of Nobel Prize winners or listen to the nonsense of animal rights activists. As somebody with a patient's interests, I know who I trust. Christine Lambe (Letters, June 9) is quite right - there is an injustice being done and the only way to stop it is for patients to speak up and provide the voice of the real losers.

As for Sylvia Noble (Letters, June 15), I am very grateful to medical research involving animals as it saved my mother's life. I care far less for a rat in a cage than a loved one in a hospital bed, but some can afford to get their priorities muddled.

Seriously Ill for Medical Research (SIMR) provides a platform for patients because it is time we started listening to their voice. The sick should have their say.

To become a 'Friend of SIMR' at no expense or for further information please write.

TOM BROMLEY, SIMR, PO Box 504, Dunstable, Beds LU6, 2LU.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.