Hi caring people, recently a popular prime time TV show covered the issue of animal experimentation and then thalidomide. After speaking to the anti vivisectionist interviewed I know that they edited her interview in such a way as to hugely diminish its effect. They also removed comments posted by myself and her on their site...5 times. So here is my contribution to what people should have been told...
Claim: Polio vaccine was result of animal experiments.
Reply: This is what Dr Albert Sabin, creator of the oral polio vaccine had to say...
"... prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."
Sabin, Albert, MD statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48.
As monkeys gain polio via the respiratory system and humans via the digestive system, the creation of the polio vaccine was delayed by 29 years by primate research and resulted in the creation of a nasal spray which did nothing but damage the olfactory (smelling) ability of children it was given to.Claim: Penicillin was result of animal experiments.
Reply: Not according to the 3 Nobel prizes for penicillin…
"How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."  Sir Alexander Fleming
7) Parke DV: Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Drug Safety Evaluation. ATLA 1994, 22:207-209.
"Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests [by Florey and Chain] because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man." Howard Florey
8) Florey H: The advance of chemotherapy by animal experiment. Conquest 1953, 41:12and the third Nobel Prize Winner for penicillin...“No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is carried out on several animal species including primates under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave in the same way in humans; because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal”. Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain, under oath at a hearing investigating the Thalidomide tragedy. Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1997, p. 103.
Then penicillin was delayed for 29 years because it is systemically ineffective in rabbits, costing the lives of millions.."Flemming considered penicillin a potential chemotherapeutic agent, but his early in-vivo investigations were discouraging. In rabbits, serum levels of penicillin dropped rapidly after parenteral administration, too fast to allow the several hours of contact with bacteria required for an effect in vitro.
6) Steffee CH: Alexander Fleming and penicillin. The chance of a lifetime? N C Med J 1992, 53:308-310"Florey, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for penicillin, administered penicillin to a cat at the same time Fleming was giving it to his sick friend. Florey’s cat died" Allison VD: Personal recollections of Sir Almroth Wright and Sir Alexander Fleming. Ulster Med J 1974, 43:89-98.More re antibiotics..."One of the new antibiotic drugs, Chloramphenicol, has been recorded as a cause of fatal aplastic anaemia in human beings. But extensive experiments on dogs have failed to show any evidence of injury or disease to the canine species."
(Bulletin, Easton, Mass., U.S.A., April 2 1953.)
Streptomycin: This popular antibiotic caused birth defects such as limb malformations in the offspring of rats.
Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.
Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307
Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202
Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993
Claim: cancer research requires animals
Reply: In fact depite the use of about a billion animals in cancer research in the last century cancer continues to increase…
“ The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6.1998
"Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud", is the title of an article written by Dr Irwin D. Bross former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest private cancer research institute in the world It begins:
"The use of animals in cancer research has been attacked as unnecessary cruelty to animals, and defended as absolutely essential for research progress that will prevent or cure human cancer. From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that what are called 'animal model systems' in cancer research have been a total failure."
"The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."and after going our seperate ways from mice 65 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million years ago, needless to say animals are still not predictive for humans...2004
It’s been well known for maybe two decades that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings – actual human tumours inside patients – will respond…Preclinical models of human cancer, in large part, stink…Hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted every year by drug companies using these [animal] models…Prof. Robert Weinberg, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fortune, 9th March.2004
[mouse models are] woefully inadequate…if you look at the millions and millions and millions of mice that have been cured, and you compare that to the relative success, or lack thereof, that we've achieved in the treatment of metastatic disease clinically, you realize that there just has to be something wrong with those models. Homer Pearce, research fellow at Eli Lilly. Fortune, 9th March.2004
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.2007From the handbook of animal experimenters..."The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 400,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening." Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.
...25 years, 400,000 substances, no doubt hundreds of millions of animals and dollars and "not a single benefit emerged for humans". Please stop wasting money given in good faith and via taxation on animal experiments.As for 'testing' to ensure products are safe for humans...See www.safermedicines.org/.../teratogenicity.shtml www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php
To wit; "More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time." Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133. (That is a failure rate of 97.5%)
Dr Sharratt, British Petroleum "As an index of acute toxicity, this (LD50) is valueless."
D. Lorke, Institute of Toxicology, Bayer, AG "…even if the LD50 could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is hardly possible."
"The predictive reliability of this technique has been questioned and its use on living animals has been criticized." (Beecham Products Research Dept.)
"…the rabbit eye is structurally and physiologically different from the human eye." (Johnson and Johnson).and animals cannot be used to predict human carcinogens, is it any wonder the planet has carcinogenic pollutants and other harmful substances...
Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice.  · DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals.  · Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78
...there is not even a reliable correlation between rats and mice yet we are supposed to believe that results can be transferred to humans.Claim: Drug testing requires animals
Reply: "92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals." US Food and Drug Administration (2004) Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products.
"Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless."
- Dr James D. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14 1964.
"Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty of suffering animals against the gain of humanity spared from suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not to mankind."---The 1963 Report of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Expert Committee on Drug Toxicity
"Animal studies can neither prove or guarantee the safety of any drug. They are not a substitute for testing in humans".--J Jennings, Vice President Science & Technology of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.Pharmaceuticals are the fourth biggest killer in the western world yet they are all animal 'tested'. The only health being protected here is the financial health of drug co's as animal 'tests' help them to avoid being sued, worked for thalidomide and still works today.
Claim: anaesthetics required animal testing/experiments
Reply: Oxford Dictionary of Scientists:
Crawford Williamson Long
American physician (1815–1878)
Long, who was born in Danielsville, Georgia, received his MD from the University of Pennsylvania in 1839. He then practiced in the small Georgian village of Jefferson where he became probably the first physician to perform surgery using ether as an anesthetic. (There is one earlier record of the administration of ether, for a tooth extraction: in January 1842, William Clark gave ether to a patient whose tooth was then removed by Elijah Pope.)
The idea of using ether came to Long after he had engaged in ‘ether frolics’ – wild parties at which ether was inhaled for exhilarative effect. Long noticed that he developed many bruises during such parties but had no recollection of sustaining any injuries. This suggested to him the possibility of using it more constructively to provide surgical anesthesia. Consequently on 30 March 1842, Long removed a small tumor from the neck of an etherized patient who assured him, when he regained consciousness, that he had not experienced any pain. Long followed this up in July by painlessly amputating the toe of a young etherized boy.The show claimed that "thalidomide was released to the public despite not being tested on pregnant animals first." The fact is animal 'tests' would not have prevented this disaster. It was eventually tested in 103 species of animals and causes birth defects in only 3 and even then only when given in dosages vastly greater than humans consumed.
“There is at present no hard evidence to show the value of more extensive and more prolonged laboratory testing as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines that require these tests do so largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds. With thalidomide, for example, it is only possible to produce specific deformities in a very small number of species of animal. In this particular case, therefore, it is unlikely that specific tests in pregnant animals would have given the necessary warning: the right species would probably never have been used.” ( Professor George Teeling-Smith, in A Question of Balance; the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical innovation, p 29, publ. Office of Health Economics, 1980)
“…rats are refractory to thalidomide-induced teratogenesis” (Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2001 May-Jun;23(3):255-64. Neurobehavioral teratogenic effects of thalidomide in rats. Vorhees CV, Weisenburger WP, Minck DR)
You may be thinking "I am more concerned about animals than humans". I am in agreement there but remember that while the public believes that animal experiments are saving, protecting or curing them they will always accept it and it will continue. It's up to us to show tham that this is a lie and I am always happy to work with anyone to achieve this. Let's get the truth out there!
- Published: 15 August 2012
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia Licence