I know others have said it better but animals are like us in that they can feel loneliness, pain, sadness, loss are courageous, compassionate and have other 'human' qualities. Animal people have known this for a long time and ethologists are adding a scientific status to this knowledge. Animals, including primates, are unlike us in that they cannot be used to predict what effect substances will have on humans or for research to cure human illness. In other words they are of no value in ANY type of experimentation. Even for their own species experimentation is not necessary. Together these two facts are an overwhelming argument against vivisection.
It is common knowledge that primates have up to 99% DNA in common with humans, this fact has been used by supporters of vivisection to give the impression that they must be very good models of human disease. But as George Bernard Shaw said "“Whoever doesn't hesitate to vivisect will hardly hesitate to lie about it!” This is another example of vivisectors misleading the public because a 99% DNA correlation does not equate to 99% accuracy in any type of animal 'test', in fact primates are not even accurate for humans 50% of the time, a coin toss, as the quotes below will attest...
"It is the actual results of teratogenicity testing in primates which have been most disappointing in consideration of these animals’ possible use as a predictive model. While some nine subhuman primates (all but the bushbaby) have demonstrated the characteristic limb defects observed in humans when administered thalidomide, the results with 83 other agents with which primates have been tested are less than perfect. Of the 15 listed putative human teratogens tested in nonhuman primates, only eight were also teratogenic in one or more of the various species…." Schardein, Chemically Induced Birth Defects (publ. Marcel Decker).1985
"Warning is given not to carry over, without reservation, to man, the conclusions based on animal experiments. In monkeys none of the power carcinogens [to humans] has been shown to produce cancers." Lancet Aug 9 1952 p274
"The field of Parkinson's Disease (PD) research was greatly stimulated by the therapeutic attempts of neurosurgeons using dopaminergic brain transplantation in animals and humans which came to the fore in the 1980s and have since largely receded. There have been too many false positives to record here. Many possible false negatives may also have been ignored as part of widely documented publication bias. The most common non-human primate model of PD results from monkeys being poisoned with the neurotoxin MPTP. It is widely acknowledged that profound disparities (anatomical, physiological, neurochemical, pathological, and temporal) exist between the MPTP non-human primate model and humans with idiopathic PD. Despite these paramount concerns of human reproducibility, hundreds of studies involving thousands of animals have followed with conflicting and non-predictive results. There is no evidence to suggest that their overall predictive concordance with human PD treatment, if subjected to the meticulous quantitative analysis of Perel and co-workers" (BMJ 2007;334:197-200), would exceed the best case 50:50 coin toss probability established. Dr Marius Maxwell, Oxford, Cambridge & Harvard-trained neurosurgeon.
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds). 1987
"In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of hamsters, 8 species of primates and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally." Schardein, J.L., Drugs as Teratogens, 1976 and Schardein, J.L., Chemically Induced Birth Defects, 1985.
"We chose a dose of thalidomide close to the estimated amount required to produce human anomalies. This dose had no detectable toxic effects in the monkey..." Science 1963; 139:1294-95.
"If you make a drug that's effective against HIV, sometimes it works against SIV and sometimes it doesn't. So that basically devalues SIV as an animal model for doing experiments involved with developing drugs…The slight problem (with using monkeys as an animal model for AIDS in humans) is the monkeys don't go on to develop AIDS, they don't get sick." Dr Paul Bieniasz of the Rockefeller University in New York. Quoted in Scientists make HIV that can infect monkeys, Reuters, 3rd March.2009
...so far 80, yes eighty, AIDS vaccines have worked in monkeys, none has worked in humans.
"Animal models are not suitable for predicting the immunogenicity of therapeutic mAbs [monoclonal antibodies] in humans, and transposition of the immunogenic potential of therapeutic antibodies in animals to the human situation has no scientific rationale, even in primates" - Loisel, S., M. Ohresser, M. Pallardy, D. Dayde, C. Berthou, G. Cartron, and H. Watier. 2007. Relevance, advantages and limitations of animal models used in the development of monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 62 (1):34-42 2007
"...it was generally accepted that predicting human immunogenicity, even in non-human primates was rare and thus, the predictive power of preclinical immunogenicity is low." Bugelski & collaborators from Centocor, US FDA, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen & Pfizer. Predictive Power of Preclinical Data for Human Immunogenicity of Macromolecules: Proceedings of a Roundtable Discussion. (Discussion sponsored by the Immunotoxicology Technical Committee Health & Environmental Sciences Institute/ International Life Sciences Institute) 2004
For more on how primates have been a failure for human medicine see http://www.safermedicines.org/primates.shtml
Needless to say, if even the closest animal to us cannot be used for any type of medical research, test etc (or what should be called 'vivisection' as it does not deserve any title which implies that it is scientific) then all other species are also of no value. It is by cherry picking the data (and with hundreds of millions of animals being vivisected each year there is a lot to pick from) that vivisectors can claim that every benefit in medical history is the result of animal experiments while the evidence shows the opposite, ie animal experiments delayed and misled, often for decades and often resulting in many thousands of human deaths, the 29 year delay in penicillin is an example. Looking for a particular conclusion and ignoring animal results which do not support that also enables vivisectors to find the result they want. Needless to say this is not of any value and is a fraud.
We have an overwhelmingly strong argument on moral and scientific grounds. When we combine these two and inform the public the brainwashing of the vivisectors with the mantra of "Your child or the rat?" will be seen for the lie that it is. People will know that it is in fact "The rat and then your child" as vivisection harms animals and humans. There is nothing to weigh up. When this is understood widely people will demand an end to vivisection. Let us inform ourselves and then get this message out. www.safermedicines.org www.mrmcmed.org www.vivisectioninformation.com www.humaneresearch.org.au are good places to start or contact me. Thanks for caring.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia Licence