“"When You Know Better, You Do Better" ”
- Maya Angelo
||Vivisection (Animal Testing)
|Victory In India! Another Country Ends Animal Testing...
|For Household Products
PETA - Posted by Dan - January 30th, 2014
Minolta DSCIndia has decided to end animal testing for household products after an extensive campaign by PETA India, which included appeals from high-profile politicians as well as lengthy discussions with PETA India’s scientist and support from scientists at PETA UK and PETA US.
This exciting news is another important milestone in the global fight to end animal testing!
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) committee responsible for determining test requirements for household products, on which PETA India’s scientist has an official seat, decided in a meeting on Wednesday to replace a skin sensitisation test – which is currently performed by rubbing harsh chemicals into guinea pigs’ raw, abraded skin – with a non-animal testing method. This move will end all animal-poisoning test requirements for cleaners, detergents and other common household products in India.
The news comes after India’s decision last year – following PETA India’s campaign – to end tests on animals for cosmetics and their ingredients by removing animal tests from the relevant BIS standard. PETA India is now working to urge the Indian government to take the next step, as Israel has done, and ban the sale of all cosmetics and household products tested on animals anywhere in the world.
PETA and its international affiliates will continue to work hard towards the day when no animals are made to suffer for cosmetics and personal-care and household products anywhere in the world. Show your support and join the thousands of caring consumers who choose products that have not been tested on animals by taking our pledge:
Take The Pledge Here
See article @ PETA
|Class B Animal Dealer Closed Down
American Anti-Vivisection Society - January 15th, 2014
One Less Dealer, Five Left - Congress Must End Use Of Pets In Labs!
On January 15, random source Class B dealer Kenneth Schroeder had his license revoked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and can no longer sell dogs and cats to laboratories. USDA filed a complaint in September 2013 alleging that Schroeder “willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act” when he illegally obtained seven dogs, failed to maintain proper housing for animals, and did not give USDA inspectors access to his records and facilities, as required by law. Although welcome news, five other random source Class B dealers still operate, collecting dogs and cats from shelters, breeders, and hunters and selling them to labs.
The random source Class B dealer business must end! But only Congress can make it happen.
While the number of random source dealers has been dwindling, those still in business do so under a cloud of cynicism. The public has long been concerned about pets being used in laboratories. In fact, the story of Pepper, a Dalmatian who was stolen from her family, sold to a lab, and killed during an experiment, spurred the creation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in 1966. As part of the AWA’s legal standards of care and treatment for animals acquired and used in research, testing, and education, it is also meant to protect lost and stolen pets from being sold to research. Additionally, as stated in a 2009 report from the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR), the random source “Class B dealer system does not operate consistently as intended,” particularly with regard to tracebacks (a paper trail documenting the purchase and sale of animals). Considering that the purpose of the AWA is to protect people’s pets, this is especially concerning!
However, the Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 2224) would ban random source dealers and help keep companion dogs and cats safe. Congress must uphold the original intent of the AWA and protect our pets!
Consider the USDA’s complaint against random source Class B dealer James Woudenberg, who was alleged to have obtained four dogs and one cat illegally. This case highlights the fact that even when the USDA attempts to shut down violators, there are limitations to what can be accomplished without changing the law.
Congress cannot allow random source Class B dealers to operate outside the intent of the law. By supporting the Pet Safety and Protection Act, Congress can end this dirty business.
What you can do: Please contact your Representative and ask him/her to cosponsor the Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 2224). Tell him/her that the original intent of the Animal Welfare Act is to protect lost and stolen pets from being sold to research and that random source Class B dealers are not adequately regulated.
See article for sample letter that you can email to your representative @ AAVS
See also AAVS Facebook Page
|50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
|From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement
Vivisection Information Network -
Americans For Medical Advancement
1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.
2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.
3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.
4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977. This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.
5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals.
6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans.
7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.
8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.
9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.
10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.
11.Combined heart lung transplants were also "perfected" on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days. Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.
12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.
13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.
14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.
15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.
16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.
17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths.
18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans.
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health.
20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.
21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants. It worked well in woodchucks.
22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.
23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.
24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.
25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.
26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.
27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen. Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.
28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: "...excellent safety profile. No ...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species."
29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.
30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.
31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.
32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.
33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.
34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. 
35. 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.
36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.
37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.
38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant.
39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders.
40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities."
41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.
42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.
43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals. Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful. In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.
44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood. Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.
45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: "How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."
46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.
47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result.
48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.
49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.
50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans.
Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE -
HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES
See entire article with references @ Vivisection Information - Disasters Of Animal Testing
Americans For Medical Advancement
|Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments?
Huffington Post - Science - The Blog -
By Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H.. (Neurologist, public health specialist, author) - January 12th, 2014
I once attended a neuroscience conference featuring a talk about spinal cord injury. The presenter showed a brief video clip that haunts me still to this day.
The presenter showed a clip of his experiment in which he had crushed a cat's spinal cord and was recording the cat's movement on a treadmill. He had forcibly implanted electrodes into the cat's brain and she was struggling to keep upright, dragging her paralyzed legs on the treadmill. She repeatedly fell off the machine.
At one point, the experimenter lifted her up to reposition her on the treadmill and the cat did something that was utterly unexpected. She rubbed her head against the experimenter's hand.
Throughout this series on animal experiments, I have tried to draw attention to the general ineffectiveness of animal experiments and how they impede our chances of finding cures.
I have focused on the human side of the equation. But we should also take a brief look at the animal side:
Just who are these animals abused in experimentation?
It's difficult for us to imagine what the lives are like for these animals. This is because these secretive experiments are hidden from public view and have been retreated to windowless, basement laboratories. We want to believe that those in the white coats are acting responsibly and that the animals are treated humanely.
Well, I have visited numerous laboratories and witnessed countless experiments on animals and I can tell you from personal experience that nothing is further from the truth.
As soon as you walk into a laboratory, you can't help but notice the rows and rows of barren cages holding sad animals living under the glare of fluorescent bulbs. Their bodies are burned, mutilated and scarred. Animals who have had their heads crushed grip their faces and convulse as blood pours out of their noses. You can smell and taste the stench of blood, feces and fear.
Animal protection guidelines and laws serve as smoke and mirrors. They give the impression that animals are protected from suffering when in fact, the guidelines actually serve as a cover for the protection of the experiments.
Due to the lobbying efforts of the taxpayer-funded animal experimentation industry, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not include upwards of 95 percent of all animals used in experiments: rats and mice. It also does not cover birds, reptiles, amphibians and animals used in agricultural experiments. Under the AWA, these animals are not considered animals.
Even for the animals covered, the AWA provides minimal protection and leaves enforcement up to the notoriously incompetent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
As explained by Mariann Sullivan, former Deputy Chief Court Attorney at the New York State Supreme Court (1):
The standards set forth... require little more than that animals be fed, watered, vetted and kept in reasonably clean and safe enclosures that allow them to make species-appropriate postural adjustments.
In other words, the AWA basically stipulates that animals be fed and be allowed to move about, if only a little, in their cages.
The AWA also requires that experimentation facilities set up so-called "Animal Care and Use Committees" to "consider alternatives" and "minimize discomfort, distress and pain to the animals." However, the AWA provides loopholes for even these standards and animal experimenters and their friends dominate the committees.
Bottom line: any experiment, no matter how painful or how much suffering it causes, can be justified under the guise of "science."
Even when animal welfare violations are found, the fines charged rarely serve as a deterrent for future violations. In December, the USDA fined Harvard Medical School for repeated violations. Two monkeys died because they were not given access to water. One died from strangulation from a toy. The fine? $24,000. For an institution that receives hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to fund its experiments, the fine was a slap on the wrist.
If these egregious violations can happen at Harvard, what do you think goes on in laboratories with far less visibility?
Surely we can do better than this. The animals used in experiments are much more than furry test tubes left over after years living in fear. These animals, when given the opportunity, can experience joy, empathy and affection. Watch a rat laugh as his belly is tickled or takes a bath and you can see how much joy they are capable of experiencing.
I often find myself thinking back to that cat I watched at the neuroscience conference. I said a quiet prayer that her spinal cord injury wiped out her ability to feel pain in her legs and I can't help but wonder if anyone else in the audience noticed what I did. Even at the peak of her suffering, the cat was seeking comfort from the very hand that caused it. Ten days later, she was killed and her brain dissected.
What does this say about us? Are we going to continue to turn a blind eye to the suffering we cause? Have we, to borrow a phrase from Pink Floyd, become comfortably numb?
As Matthew Scully, a special advisor to President George W. Bush, wrote it in his book Dominion:(p.382)
When scientists abandon moral scruple in the treatment of animals, growing numb to the disfigurement and suffering before their eyes, regarding life itself as a mere instrument to be used and discarded, used and discarded, the habit is hard to shake.
Isn't it time we shake this habit, take a stand against this senseless suffering and pursue science that represents us at our best? We don't have to choose between helping animals or humans and we never did. And I say this as a medical doctor, neurologist and public heath specialist: by ending the abuse of animals in experiments, not only do we save them, but we will also discover the most effective research methods that will save us.
Animal experiments don't represent the pinnacle of scientific achievement, but the basement. Unlike the naysayers, I believe that we are capable of so much more. All we need is the courage, vision and resourcefulness to make it happen.
Let's make that our collective resolution for 2014.
Want to help make this happen? Join me on Facebook and check out my Website
See article @ Huffington Post - Science
|11 Facts About Animal Testing
- 1. Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in U.S. labs every year.
- 2. 92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.
- 3. Labs that use mice, rats, birds, reptiles and amphibians are exempted from the minimal protections under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
- 4. Up to 90 percent of animals used in U.S. labs aren’t counted in the official statistics of animals tested.
- 5. The shifting of the earth’s plates in the Indian Ocean on Dec. 26, 2004 caused a rupture more than 600 miles long, displacing the seafloor above the rupture by perhaps 10 yards horizontally and several yards vertically. As a result, trillions of tons of rock were moved along hundreds of miles and caused the planet to shudder with the largest magnitude earthquake in 40 years.
- 6. Even animals that are protected under the AWA can be abused and tortured. And the law doesn’t require the use of valid alternatives to animals, even if they are available.
- 7. According to the Humane Society, registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as many as 12, 000 animals.
- 8. Several cosmetic tests commonly performed on mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs include:•skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dripped into the eyes without any pain relief:
•repeated force-feeding studies that last weeks or months, to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards.
•widely condemned “lethal dose” tests, where animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine what dose causes death.
- 9. In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day for two years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses.
- 10. The real life applications for some of the tested substances are as trivial as an “improved” laundry detergent, new eye shadow, or copycat drug to replace a profitable pharmaceutical whose patent expired.
- 11. “Alternative” tests are those that achieve one or more of the “three R’s:” •replaces a procedure that uses animals with a procedure that doesn’t use animals •reduces the number of animals used in a procedure •refines a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain.
Buy animal friendly products.
Sources: PETA, Humane Society, ASPCA , Reuters, PETA.org, Humane Society of the United States
Buy Cruelty Free Products: Act Now Action Guide Support Cruelty-Free
|The Top 3 Ways Animal Experiments Hurt Humans
Huffington Post Green - By Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H..
Neurologist, public health specialist, author "Animals and Public Health. Why Treating Animals Better is Critical for Human Welfare" - November 11th, 2013
Suppose you are sending your 12-year-old daughter off to a summer camp two states away and she is flying on a plane by herself for the first time. Would you put her on that plane if you knew that it had less than a 10 percent chance of landing safely at its destination?
Why do we accept these odds when it comes to animal experimentation? If you were volunteering for a clinical trial, there is more than 90 percent chance that the drug that tested safe and effective in animals will be ineffective or unsafe in you.
In the previous blogs in my series on animal experimentation, we reviewed the three main reasons why animal experimentation doesn't work. Unlike failures in many other scientific areas, the failure of animal experimentation has a high cost -- and harms us in three crucial ways:
- 1. Misleading Safety Tests in Animals Directly Hurt Humans.
In March, 2006, six human volunteers were injected with TGN 1412, an experimental therapy created by TeGenero. As described by Slate:
Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony. The compound was designed to dampen the immune response, but it had supercharged theirs, unleashing a cascade of chemicals that sent all six to the hospital. Several of the men suffered permanent organ damage, and one man's head swelled up so horribly that British tabloids refer to the case as the 'elephant man trial'.
TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats and monkeys with no ill effects. In addition, cynomolgus monkeys were used because they best replicated the human mechanisms specifically targeted by TGN 1412 (1). Thus, not only were several different species used, those deemed most relevant to humans were used. Monkeys also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and in fact were given 500× the dose given to the human volunteers for not less than four consecutive weeks. Still, none of the monkeys manifested the ill effects that humans showed within minutes of receiving a miniscule amount of the test drug.
TGN 1412 exemplifies how animal experiments are notably unreliable for determining if a chemical or drug will be safe in humans. Here are some other examples where animal experiments hurt people:
•In 2003, Élan Pharmaceuticals had to stop trials of an Alzheimer's vaccine that had cured the disease in "Alzheimer's mice," after the substance caused brain inflammation in humans (2).
•A highly touted gene therapy that cured dogs of hemophilia was discontinued because it caused liver damage and other problems in humans that were not seen in animal experiments.
•An NIH clinical trial of fialuridine, a promising medication for Hepatitis B, was abruptly terminated because it caused liver failure in seven out of ten people, five of whom died and two of whom required liver transplants (3).
Thus, far from protecting us, animal experimentation puts us at greater risk of harm. Additionally, the indirect harms as a result of misleading tests can be substantial.
- 2. Misleading Animal Experiments May Cause Us to Throw Away Cures
It is hard to quantify how many missed opportunities there may have been because of misleading animal experiments. However, there are plenty of examples that demonstrate how lucky we are that researchers did not believe the animal tests. For example:
•An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes how tamoxifen, one of our most effective drugs against certain types of breast cancer, would have been abandoned because it causes liver tumors in rats, a problem that does not carry over to humans.
•The leukemia drug Gleevec was almost lost because it causes severe liver toxicity in dogs -- but not in humans (4). Fortunately, the manufacturers persisted with development of this drug because it seemed so promising in human cell culture tests.
As Dr. John Pippin argues:
Gleevec is a success of rational drug design and human-based drug testing -- a life-prolonging success that would have been lost if the results of animal research had prevailed.
•Experiments on animals delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection (5).
•Animal experiments suggested that early visual deprivation will cause permanent blindness until a child blinded at birth was found to regain vision after cataract surgery later in life (6). Thanks to this human discovery, older blind children may now be offered surgery that, based on misleading animal experiments, was previously thought hopeless.
Of every five to 10,000 potential drugs tested in the lab, only about five pass on to clinical trials. Many don't pass the animal tests because of species-specific results. Yet many of these agents would likely have worked spectacularly and been safe in humans.
One can't help but wonder how many people would have been saved if human-based tests that would better predict harmful effects and drug efficacy were used rather than animal experiments?
And so we come to the last major harm.
- 3. Time and Money Wasted on Animal Experiments Could Have Been Directed into More Fruitful Human-Based Tests.
An invalid disease model can lead the industry in the wrong direction, wasting time and significant investment. On average, it costs a company more than $1 billion to get one new drug to the market. NIH alone spends almost half of its funding -- up to 14.5 billion of our tax dollars yearly -- on animal experiments.
Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant or contrary to human biology. It's taken over 25 years of failed HIV vaccine clinical trials for researchers to seriously question the usefulness of non-human primate HIV experiments, and over 30 years before we realized that the rodent model of diabetes is wrong.
We can be pretty confident that the victims of the TGN 1412 disaster will never risk their lives based on animal experiments again. In fact, a human-based in vitro test would have predicted the harmful effects and protected those men (7).
How many more people need to suffer and die before we realize that, if we really want to help ourselves, we need to cut out the animal experiments and focus on more effective human-based tests?
Stay tuned for the next blog in the series!
Want to know more? Check out my website and join me on Facebook.
- 1.Akhtar (2012) Animals and public health. Why treating animals better is critical to human welfare. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 147-148.
- 2.Allen. Of mice and men. The problems with animal testing. Slate. June 1, 2006.
- 3.Mckenzie, et al. Hepatic Failure and Lactic Acidosis Due to Fialuridine (FIAU), an Investigational Nucleoside Analogue for Chronic Hepatitis B. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1099-1105.
- 4.Pippin. South Texas Law Review 2013; 54: 469-511.
- 5.Greek, Greek. Animal research and human disease. JAMA 2000; 283: 743-744.
- 6.Ostrovsky, et al. Vision following extended congenital blindness.Psychological Science 2006; 17: 1009-1014
- 7.Dhir et al. A predictive biomimetic model of cytokine release induced by TGN1412 and other therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. J. Immunotoxicol. 2012;9:34-42.
See article @ Huffington Post - Animal Experiments
|Testing Without Animals A Step Closer to Reality
The Humane Society Of The United States - September 9th, 2013
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical industry have proposed a new initiative to improve the safety of medicines and move away from animal testing. The new, entirely non-animal testing strategy proposed for detecting drugs that are toxic to the heart represents a dramatic change from current approaches involving measurement of heart rate and physiology in animals.
The proposal by the FDA, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute and the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium combines a computer-based model and tests on isolated human heart muscle cells. It recommends accelerated development and evaluation of these “21st century technologies” with a goal of being ready for use in two years.
“This is a truly exciting initiative, which confirms that the extensive international work by The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International and other organizations in moving away from animal testing in chemical safety evaluation will lead to more effective human health outcomes,” said Catherine Willett, PhD, director of regulatory toxicology for The HSUS.
The FDA/HESI/CSRC proposal includes the following recommendations (Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 565–567; 2013):
- The use of two non-animal approaches: computer modeling and human cell-based assays
- a goal of being ready for use in two years
- the ability of these methods to fully replace the animal tests will depend on the scientific evaluation of the new methods
The HSUS, HSI and the
Human Toxicology Project Consortium support development and use of non-animal methods in testing and research internationally through lobbying and direct funding, coordination of scientific meetings and workshops, and through educational and scientific presentations and publications.
Media contact: Niki Ianni: 610-999-6932, email@example.com
See article @
Humane Society News
|PETA Donates $1 Million Worth of Medical Dummies
Veg News - By Tommy Dean - January 16th, 2014
Medical professionals from around the world can now practice trauma-victim procedures without using animals.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently donated 64 TraumaMan medical simulation dummies to nine different nations including Costa Rica, Egypt, Iran, and Mongolia. Prosthetic equipment is becoming a standard for medical training, but many countries with limited budgets cannot afford the burgeoning technology, so they perform painful procedures on animals. TraumaMan, which is produced by the company Simulab, imitates a bleeding human torso, replete with multiple layers of skin and tissue as well as organs and ribs. “PETA’s first-of-its-kind collaboration with Simulab and surgeons around the world to modernize medical training shows that animal welfare and human welfare go hand in hand,” says Justin Goodman, director of laboratory investigations. Altogether, the animal-welfare organization’s TraumaMan donation totaled $1 million.
See article @ Veg News - Trauma Man
|Want to Improve Medical Research? Cut Out the Animals!
|By Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H. - Neurologist, Public Health Specialist
Huffington Post Science - July 11th, 2013
"Dr. Akhtar's book, "Animals and Public Health. Why Treating Animals Better is Critical to Human Welfare" explores how the treatment of animals is intricately linked with human health." Dr. Akhtar has spoken and written extensively on the connection between animal protection and human health. She appeared in the T.V. show "30 Days" by Morgan Spurlock discussing animal research and is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.
(My thoughts) Although the number one reason why we should be against vivisection is simply because it is wrong to harm another living being, the following blog by Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H. offers additional reasons why we should not be involved in animal experimentation:
Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work -- Reason 1: Stressed Animals Yield Poor Data / 7/31/2013
Huffington Post - Animal Experimentation
Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work -- Reason 2: Animals Don't Get Human Diseases / 8/27/2013
Huffington Post - Animal Testing
Want to Improve Medical Research? Cut Out the Animals! / 7/11/2013
Huffington Post - Want To Improve Medical Research?
Follow Dr. Aysha Akhtar @ Facebook
See her website @ Animals And Public Health
Follow her blog @ Huffington Post - Aysha Akhtar Blog
|Am I A Hypocrite if I Use Pharmaceuticals?
|A Question I asked Gary Francione
October 15th, 2013
I recently sent this message to Gary Francione on Facebook after being questioned by a family member about my vegan views on using medications that were tested on animals. Gary's response does clarify things somewhat, although I still feel like a hypocrite if I have to use any sort of medication or stay in the hospital, have surgery, etc. knowing that animals suffered and died to develop all medical treatments.
Facebook message: "Hello - I have a question I'd like to ask you, something I struggle with and I'm sure many other vegans do as well."
"I have been vegan for about 35 years (vegetarian for 43) and I have heard every argument against it. I come from a family of meat eaters that will never change their ways..........and many of them hunt, so I get it from every angle."
"Recently, my brother said to me that vegans such as myself should never ever use any medications, over the counter or prescription, since they all have been tested on animals. I should not have surgery, use anesthesia, etc. He told me that people such as myself love to preach about animals rights yet have no problem benefiting from the suffering and death of animals every time we take a Tylenol or cold medicine or any other medication."
"It is so very easy to argue against meat eating, animals used in entertainment, fur farms, zoos, marine parks, horseracing, ETC, and how unethical all of these industires are....plus I am also not using any of the products that are the end result of these unethical industries.........EXCEPT when it comes to animal testing. I am perplexed as to how vegans can make a good argument when although we know how unethical animal testing is, by the same token many of us are also forced to use medications and medical procedures that are the end result. How do we argue this?"
"Thanks so much. I appreciate your time. Susan"
Gary Francione's response was:
"From my 2000 book, Intro to Animal Rights:"
"Question 13: Isn’t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position?Answer: No, it is not. Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals."
"This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color."
"Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide."
"We certainly could develop drugs and surgical procedures without the use of animals, and many would prefer we do so. Those who object to animal use for these purposes, however, have no control as individuals over government regulations or corporate policies concerning animals. To say that they cannot consistently criticize the actions of government or industry while they derive benefits from these actions, over which they have no control, is absurd as a matter of logic. And as a matter of political ideology, it is a most disturbing endorsement of unquestioned obeisance to the policies of the corporate state. Indeed, the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan “love it or leave it,” uttered by the pseudo-patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War."
Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely. Animal by-products are used in a wide variety of things, including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics. But the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation. The individual who is not stranded in a lifeboat or on a mountaintop always has it within her power to avoid eating meat and dairy products, products that could not be produced without the use of animals, unlike drugs and medical procedures, which could be developed without animal testing."
Books written by Gary Francione can be found on his website: The Abolitionist Approach
Gary Francione Facebook Page @ Facebook - The Abolitionist Approach
I came across this thread on Vegan Forum: "Does taking non-vegan medicine make me a hypocrite?" There are great responses here that will help us to alleviate some of the guilt we feel when we are forced to use medications.
Vegan Forum - Does Taking Non Vegan Medicine Make Me A Hypocrite
You can also read "Ask Jo! Grassroots Veganism With Jo Stepaniak" @ VegSource.com.
She responds a question regarding vegans taking non-vegan prescriptions.
|The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt
| June 28th 2013 / By Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham, PhD
"New scientific research has cast grave doubt on the safety testing of hundreds of thousands of consumer products, food additives and industrial chemicals......"
See article @ GreenMedInfo.com
Originally published by Independent Science News
|Alternatives To Animal Testing
|June 26th, 2013
(link sent to me by Julia....thanks Julia! : )
"There are a variety of alternatives to animal testing, each of which helps save animal lives. In addition to preserving animal lives, the available alternatives to animal testing are reliable and efficient, unlike what many may believe. Additionally, by participating in methods that do not involve animals, the tests that are completed can take less time and cost less as well. Some of the other methods that can be used in place of animal testing include studies completed and tested on volunteers. Some of the more sophisticated techniques that are used include computer modeling, genomic and in vitro."
See entire article @ Alternatives to Animal Testing
|Karen Dawn From DawnWatch - Animal Testing
Love animal rights advocate, Karen Dawn. Please check out her website @ DawnWatch.com - Dawn Animal World News Watch = Animal Testing.
"WE CAN, AND SHOULD, OVERHAUL THE SYSTEM WITHOUT ENDANGERING A SINGLE LIFE" -
"One can fight against animal testing without calling for a universal ban on it today, with no alternatives in place. There are points on which any reasonable compassionate person, animal advocate or not, would agree. We could call for an immediate end to animal testing for trivial and ethically questionable purposes, a ban that would save the majority of laboratory animals, many millions per year. We could insist that a sizable chunk of the budgets of those companies that do medical testing on animals be used to continue to develop and refine in vitro and other methods of testing. We could ensure that in vitro methods now available are used wherever possible and that more are developed. Meanwhile all results of tests should be made public immediately, so that the same test is never done over and over by competing companies unwilling to share information. Sadly, the Chemical Manufacturers Union is currently opposing a petition that would compel chemical manufacturers to disclose existing toxicity and exposure data on HPV chemicals. In an ethical world, profits cannot justify unnecessary suffering. "
|Does Animal Testing Really Help Human Medicine?
Animal Experimentation continues because it is beneficial to the huge Medical, Technology, Research, Drug Company alliance that is increasingly intervening in our lives and our health. Research is big business, so breeders, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, universities, and others who profit generously from animal research continue to make big money by convincing the public that animal testing is necessary. Animal Experimentation is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans. This is simply not true! Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. Here are a few of the facts on vivisection:
- It is estimated that approximately 100 million animals worldwide are needlessly
tortured and killed in animal experiments!!
Animals are blinded, poisoned to death, scalded, electrocuted, paralysed, burned, maimed, driven mad, turned into drug addicts, and given diseases in animal experiments.
- We now know that more than 90 % of human diseases are caused by environmental impacts or lifestyle choices. The need for cures is largely a myth created to sustain a multi-billion dollar medical structure. Vivisection is actually a huge business, with billions of dollars involved in breeding, grants, fundraising and salaries. Those enmeshed in this industry will do everything they can to perpetuate their profits, including misleading the public about the efficacy of animal experimentation and
healthy animals continue to be sacrificed.
- The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be".
- 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
- The chances of a cure for most major cancers has not improved over the past 30 years and more people suffer from the disease than ever before. Yet still the major part of thousands of dollars spent annually by cancer charities goes to animal-based research. So if you contribute to cancer research organizations, this is what you are really contributing to.
- We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure.
- Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences.
- 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing.
- According to World Health Organization out of 200,000 released mediations only 240 are labeled as essential.
- One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
- It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.
- Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs
- Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.
- Aspirin fails animal tests, as do Digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, Insulin (causes animal birth defects), Penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
- If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
- Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
- Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.
- Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
- At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
- Less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals.
- Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time.
Doctors who are against vivisection:
- Dr. Andre Menache.........please listen to him here:
Experiments in Weizmann Institute
and also at:
Good Science vs. Bad Science
- A great book, by Drs. Ray and Jean Geek, called "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" dispels the myth that animal experiments have contributed to medical progress. They show that using animals to safety-test human medicines is worse than useless!
- "I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life." -H. Fergie Woods, M.D.
- "What good does it do you to test something (a vaccine) in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years." - Dr. Mark Feinberg, a leading AIDS researcher.
- "There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry." - Dr MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK
- "There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, M.D., German surgeon.
- "I cannot recall a single instance where my clinical judgment was even remotely influenced by the results of a psychological study using animals as subjects or 'models.' "
- Michael Klaper, M.D.
- "Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs." - Neal D. Barnard, M.D.
- 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. by Hans Ruesch, editor. CIVIS, New York, 1989. A collection of statements from physicians opposing animal experimentation from 1989 back to 1824. (This is a very intesesting read......Please check out http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/ This website give information on The Hans Ruesch Center
- "We've made great progress in the past decade, and with the help of our partners we can do even more to increase the pace of developing and introducing alternative methods."
William Stokes, D.V.M., director of NICEATM, the NTP office at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Please check out:50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS to see how animal experimentation has misled researchers for centuries.....this is a great read!
Here a just a handful of drugs that were extensively tested on animals and after being approved for human use, were found to have dangerous and deadly side affects. Some were pulled from the market.:
Clioquinol, Eraldin/Practocol, Tequin, TGN 1412,
Thalidomide, Zyprexa/Olanzapine. Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Rexar, Suprofen, Zomax, Suprol,
Rezulin, Selacryn, and Vioxx have been pulled from the market after killing or harming thousands and thousands of people.
Side effects of prescription medicines kill over 100,000 people a year in the US and almost as many in the UK. That is more than all illegal drugs combined!
The great breakthroughs in science that have given us all the medical advances we enjoy today have actually come from ethical, human-based research - most notably astute clinical observation, epidemiology (population studies), autopsies and in- vitro research, including the use of human tissue. Anaesthetics, antibiotics, aspirin, beta-blockers, pacemakers and many other great discoveries owe nothing to animals and everything to human ingenuity.
Another issue is the fact that drugs can injure animals but display no adverse reactions in humans. These are equally significant in revealing the inaccuracy of animal data because these tests keep potentially useful medications out of our reach.
Here are some examples of how animal testing significantly reveals the differences between human data and animal data:
Penicillin, considered one of the most significant medical advances, was delayed and nearly disregarded altogether because of animal testing. Alexander Fleming first noted penicillin killing bacteria in petri dishes. He then tested in on rabbits. It failed. Rabbits, unlike humans, excrete penicillin in their urine before it can be effective. Fleming put the drug aside, believing it to be useless. He later had a very sick patient he felt there was no hope for. With nothing to lose, he tried administering the penicillin. The patient's life was saved, and antibiotics were introduced to the world. H.W. Florey, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin, attempted administering it to a sick cat. The cat died. Luckily, Fleming initially tested penicillin on rabbits. Though not effective, at least it was not harmful. Had he tested his preparation on cats, guinea pigs, or hamsters it most likely would have have never been tried on humans, as it is fatal to all of them. Penicillin is also known to cause birth defects in rats.
Flouride, was initially withheld from dental use after causing cancer in rats.
Ibuprofen, a apin medication causes kidney failure in dogs, even at very low doses.
Acetaminophen, used everyday by Americans, causes kidney failure and death in cats.
Aspirin, is the most popular over-the-counter drug and has stood the test of time as being effective and safe for humans, yet aspirin causes birth defects in rats, mice, cats, dogs, guinea pigs and monkeys.
So, what are the non-animal methods of scientific research?
Here are a few:
- In Vitro Research - this testing has been shown to produce more accurate results which correlate from the laboratory to real life.
Tissue Culture - is the cultivation of the living cells outside the organism. This is done by placing the cells in a nutritional medium. In other words, pieces of living flesh can be grown and multiplied in the test tube. This includes Organ and Cell Cultures.
Organ Cultures - Small pieces of tissue are cultured so as to retain the function of the organ from which they where removed. In the opinion of some biologists, organ cultures, to an even greater extent than cell cultures, have considerable potential for future development.
Cell Cultures - Dispersed cells are cultured in a medium that promotes continuous growth. These can produce vast quantities of cells over the course of years. Cell cultures can be produced from normal healthy cells or from cancerous cells. Human cells can be given by a living donor who need suffer no ill effects from losing a few cells.
- Models -
Simulated human anatomical features, including flesh, muscle and bone structure, make it possible now to pursue, for example, car crash studies without resorting to animals. Resusci-dog models are now used extensively in veterinary science.
- Audio Visual Guides and Aids -
Film, closed circuit television and video tape can all be used as teaching aids, thus sparing thousands of animals from continued re-runs of the same experiment.
- Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry -
These techniques, used in conjunction, now make possible the detection of minute quantities of substances in their journey through the body, thus allowing direct study of the action of new drugs, etc., in humans. Their toxic effects can be noted well before they become dangerous.
- Computer and Mathematical Modeling - Recently led to new treatments for breast cancer, AIDS, high blood pressure, and aided development of new prosthetics.
- Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Analysis (QSAR). Computer technology has expanded the ability to predict the toxicity of chemicals using structural analysis. TOPKAT, a computer program with vast data on chemical activity, is able to predict the probable activity of new compounds based upon their structures.
- Epidemiology - this is the study and control of diseases within a human population. These studies have linked diet to heart disease, smoking to lung cancer, and identified all known environmental poisons and occupational diseases. These habits or substances are labeled as "dangerous" and we can avoid them.
- Genetic Engineering -
Until the early 1980's, insulin was still produced from cow and pig pancreas, and then the first commercial human insulin was marketed, made by bacteria, which had been genetically programmed to produce the human version of the hormone. Now being produced of a much purer type than previously available using animals, this insulin is helping to eliminate a great portion of the harmful effects suffered by about 20% of the users of conventionally produced animal insulin.
- Technological Breakthroughs - The achievements of physicists, chemists, mathematicians, computer engineers and biotechnical engineers have long since outpaced the archaic methods of animal experimentation.
- Check out:You Tube-Animal Testing
The major reason new drugs are still tested on animals is to protect companies in court when people are injured or killed by adverse drug reactions. It's liability protection!
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates drugs and cosmetics, has the power to require that non-animal testing alternatives be employed. Why aren't they??? The agency, however, continues to give in to industry pressure by enforcing inadequate, unreliable and cruel animal tests, and only suggesting that alternatives be considered. There is little incentive for companies to use non-animal tests without the full force of the FDA making it mandatory.
According to the UK based
Safer Medicines Trust it is estimated that adverse reactions to drugs which tested safe on animals put over 1 million people into the hospital every year! Ninety-two percent of all drugs that pass animal testing fail the clinical trail phase after they prove ineffective or dangerous to human subjects!
Why haven’t we moved further from the clearly ineffective and extremely cruel animal testing methods??! When a drug proves safe on animals and there’s only an 8% chance of it working on a human, consumers need to realize how immoral and obsolete vivesection is.
"The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on animals" writes Kelly Overton of "People Protecting Animals".
Non-animal testing methods benefit human health, eliminate animal torture and save money....but to transition to non-animal alternatives will require an educated public willing to question companies, governments and institutions that profit off of human ignorance and animal suffering. A few things you can do as a consumer are: (1) ONLY buy products that say "NOT tested on animals or have the Leaping Bunny seal of approval. (2) Only support charities that do not support testing on animals (Humane Charities) (3) Visit Great Ape Protection Act and urge your congressman and senator to support this!
(4) Write to companies to let them know why you are not buying their products. (5) Contact your elected representatives (address can be obtained by calling 800-688-9889), The US Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Ln., Rockville MD 20857 and The US Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20201. Also The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington DC 20207. Demand that they make the validation of non-animal product testing methods a high priority. (6) Inform others about the senseless cruelty of product testing using animals. Letters to the editor, classroom projects, tabling and demonstrations and even simple conversations with others will help to spread the word that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary.
Just because a drug or treatment was developed using animal research doesn't mean it couldn't have been developed *without* animal research.
|The Human Cost of Animal Experiments
Bad Medicine is a 45 minutes documentary produced by The British Anti-Vivisection Association (2007) about the history of animal testing and it's implications on human and non-human animals.
Bad Medicine is the first UK produced film exposing the full implications of basing human medicine on the practice of vivisection.
Bad Medicine exposes:
The devastating toll in human lives because of animal 'safety-tested' drugs.
The reasons why animal research cannot help people, and how human health is declining despite - or rather because of - the billions spent on animal research.
How the cancer industry is not interested in genuine cancer treatments.
The real reasons for the decline of the infectious diseases.
How the media and politicians both benefit from vivisection's continuation
How many within the medical profession are opposed to vivisection.
That vivisection is responsible for destroying our environment.
That vivisection has never been shown to be relevant to human beings.
Actor, James Cromwell explains that animal testing is cruel and counter-productive. This video takes us through just a small observation of the surface of animal testing through a number of facilities including: University of California, Riverside, Boys Town Research Center, University of North Carolina, Iams Pet Food Laboratory, to name a few.
All these tests here could have been done on human cells removed from operations or donated in test tubes, which is cheaper, 100% accurate (whereas testing on animals is extremely inaccurate, for example anesthesia that we use to knock people out actually stimulates many animals including rats, cats and horses), can be examined more carefully and most of all is more ethical.
The Test of A Civilization.
|PETA - Alternatives To Animal Testing
"The world’s most forward-thinking scientists have accepted this conclusion and have moved on to develop, validate, and implement methods for studying diseases and testing products that save animals’ lives and are actually relevant to human health. PETA not only funds the development of many of these methods but also vigorously promotes their use to governments and companies around the world and publishes research on their superiority to traditional animal tests."
See entire article @ PETA - Alternatives To Animal Testing
Read PETA’s “Alternatives to Animal Tests” Factsheet for more examples of effective and humane medical research and testing.
|How To Win Debates With Vivisectors
|by Vernon Coleman
Vernon Coleman is the author or "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: A Blueprint for a Better Society".
With all his heart and soul Vernon Coleman believes, and lives that belief, that animal experiments are morally, scientifically and ethically wrong, wrong, wrong.
Dr. Vernon Coleman
"People across the globe are paralysed,poisoned,born malformed and killed by the products of drug and chemical companies.How do they get them passed as "safe" & on to the market in the first place? Animal testing! Any result can be achieved through animal testing(meaning any product can be passed as "safe") because of the species difference between us all."
The Comeuppance (Part 1)
The Comeuppance (Part 2)
See his website @ Vernon Coleman
|America On Drugs
Dr. Oz, author and cardiothoracic surgeon, health expert and host of his own show, "The Dr. Oz Show", recently did a show on May 12, 2011, exposing the secrets of drug companies. Dr. Oz and his experts discussed deadly drug interactions, the risks of taking too many prescription drugs, doctors’ accuracy rates regarding recommending prescriptions and whether or not drug companies are inventing diseases to make money.
“THE 4 THINGS DRUG COMPANIES DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW”
According to Dr. Oz, we take for granted that the drugs we’re prescribed are safe and necessary, but that might not always be the case.
Americans are too dependant on drugs and yet we’re still sick.
- 1. Drug Companies Underestimate Dangerous Side Effects
•Some of the more commonly prescribed drugs right now are for weight loss, blood pressure, cholesterol, acid reflux. When Dr. Oz asked how many of the women in his audience who were on these drugs had a serious side effect from being on them, about a third of them stood.
•The drug Orlistat has been linked to severe liver disease, acute pancreatic damage and kidney stones. According to Dr. Oz, “Orlistat is found in the weight loss pills Alli & Xenical, but now the FDA is being pressured to yank it off the market.”
•There are side effects from drugs from which patients have died. The average person takes 12 prescriptions a year. The more drugs you take, the more risks you have, the greater the chance of adverse side effect from the drugs interacting with each other.
If you have to use a drug, Dr. Oz recommends using generic drugs because,
among other things, they have been around a long time, so we know they’re safer.
- 2. Drug Companies Control Much of the Information Your Doctor Gets About A Drug
•According to Dr. John Abramson, author of “Overdosed America”, almost all of the prescription drug information that doctors and consumers have is coming directly or indirectly from the drug companies. He says,“It’s like they’re playing poker and they can see the cards, but they don’t have to show it to the doctors. They don’t have to show it to the consumers. They often do even show it to the authors of the articles – this is evidence that doctors can’t trust professional medical journals.”
•About 85% of clinical trials are funded by the drug industry and they own data like Coke Cola owns the recipe for Coke. Doctors don’t understand their getting a selected filtered version of the information.
•Dr. Abramson studied the FDA’s data on Vioxx and Celebrex and realized the articles in our most trusted journals that told us about Vioxx and Celebrex were wrong. They are dangerous drugs and doctors did not know it. He said he talked about it and tried to get the information out, but was called “crazy” by his colleagues and could not, so he wrote his book “Overdosed America”. Only 1/4th of all international health research gets published in professional medical journals. What gets published makes prescription drugs look good. And, everything else is conveniently left out.
- 3. You’re Often Prescribed Drugs You Don’t Need
•Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, director of PharmedOut says that pharmaceutical companies invent specific diseases or conditions. And, it’s not only diseases that have been invented, but disease categories that have been changed. Anytime a disease category is expanded it increases the number of people who are eligible for drug treatment. Right now much of the prescribing in the United States is not rational, people are being prescribed drugs where the risks outweigh the benefits.
•According to Dr. Abramson, it is a wide spread practice in the drug industry to invent diseases. It’s called “disease mongering”, hyping up conditions that really aren’t diseases. You see these in commercials about overactive bladder, osteopenia, excessive daytime sleepiness etc. They are problems, but do they really need drugs? The drug industry’s job is to sell drugs. They get the drugs approved on the market for an indication that is truly helpful. Then they broaden the marketing so that they get a larger population of people who are candidates for taking their drug.
From now on, ask yourself this question, “What is the real symptom that I was having that the drug company is talking about? When did it start?“
- 4. Drugs Target the Symptom Not the Cause
•According to Dr. Abramson, acid reflux drugs have very powerful side effects. There is more pneumonia in people who take these reflux drugs because it kills the good bacteria in the stomach. Before proton pumps, people did pretty well with less potent antacids. We need to watch what we eat and look at the position we sleep in. Sometimes people need these acid reflux drugs occasionally, but not all the time.
•Statin Drugs- Some people with heart disease benefit from statins. They will prevent a heart attack in 1 out of 50 men within a five year period. There’s no evidence, however, to show that statins protect women who don’t have heart disease from having a heart attack.
•The real problem is not that women are taking statins unnecessarily. It’s that if women exercise regularly, eat a heathy diet, don’t smoke and only drink in moderation, they can prevent heart disease by 83%.
Dr. Oz advises that if your not going to study the drug your taking and weigh it’s risks against just making lifestyle changes, then think twice about taking it. Push doctors on these issues, because when you are taking 7 medications, you have an 80% risk of drug interaction.
"To further increase profit, drug companies invent disease and subsequently, offer a solution. Herein lies the origin of deadly health myths. Such myths include, but are surely not limited to, that of high cholesterol being the culprit of heart disease, insulin being the only treatment for diabetics and that AIDS, rather than starvation, is killing Africans. Inventing disease is not a "far out" conspiracy theory. It is a simple matter of finding ailments that naturally occur due to poor lifestyle habits and labeling them as a disease. Once "big-pharma" steals jurisdiction over the general public's common sense, they convince them of the necessity of their drugs."
--Shane Ellison author of Health Myths Exposed
The Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex - Corruption in Drug Research and in Medicine
T. Colin Campbell declares that most illnesses can be prevented by a vegan diet. Professor Campbell speaks about the wide-ranging benefit.
Go Vegan Radio - Bob Linden and Professor T. Colin Campbell
Food Matters Documentary
|Institute For In Vitro Sciences
The Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. is a non-profit research and testing laboratory dedicated to the advancement of in vitro (non-animal) methods worldwide. Founded in 1997, IIVS has worked with industry, academic laboratories and government agencies to implement in vitro testing strategies that limit animal use while supplying key information for product safety and efficacy decisions.
Institute For In Vitro Sciences
Animal Protection Outreach Partners:
- Alternatives Research And Development
- The mission of the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation is to fund and promote the development, validation and adoption of non-animal methods in biomedical research, product testing and education.
- FRAME - Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments
- FRAME's ultimate aim is the elimination of the need to use laboratory animals in any kind of medical or scientific procedures. FRAME is dedicated to the development of new and valid methods that will replace the need for laboratory animals in medical and scientific research, education, and testing. Where the use of animals is currently necessary, FRAME supports the reduction of numbers involved to an unavoidable minimum and refinement of experimental procedures to minimise any suffering caused.
- International Foundation for Ethical Research
- The International Foundation for Ethical Research is dedicated to supporting the development and implementation of scientifically valid alternatives that refine, reduce, or replace the use of live animals in research, product testing, and classroom education.
IFER is dedicated to the belief that through new technologies and diligent research, combined with personal and professional accountability, we can find scientific solutions that will create a better world for us all...without utilizing non-human animals.
|Take The Leap To Cruelty-Free Pledge
The Cruelty-Free Pledge
Make a commitment to eliminate animal testing by pledging to only purchase products approved by the Leaping Bunny Program, which provides the best assurance that no new animal testing is used in any phase of product development by the company, its laboratories, or suppliers. The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics’ (CCIC) Leaping Bunny Program administers a cruelty-free standard and the internationally recognized Leaping Bunny Logo for companies producing cosmetic, personal care, and household products.
To encourage more companies to sign on to the Leaping Bunny Program, we have launched a nation-wide pledge campaign to urge consumers to take the leap to cruelty-free products. By signing the pledge you will help to make our collective voices even stronger and drive more companies to go cruelty-free, saving animals from cruel and unnecessary testing.
|John Hopkins University and the 3R's
John Hopkins University is a prestigious world-class private research university based in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. Johns Hopkins maintains campuses in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Italy, China, and Singapore. JHU has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress....the "3 R's". They have a wing dedictated to finding alternatives to animal experimentation (CAAT….Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing) They also have a website ( CAAT
) that provides a variety of resources, including grants for scientists developing non-animal methods workshops on alternative methods, books, newsletters, and other publications.
John Hopkins University also manages a website ALTWEB, ( Altweb )
Which is the global clearinghouse for information on alternatives to animal testing. They discuss methods and sources available to Reduce, Refine or Replace animals used in teaching, testing and research (the 3 R’s).
Please check out both of these websites. I am both so impressed and encouraged with the work that John Hopkins University is doing, where they believe the best science is humane science.
They have a newsletter you can subscribe to @
Watch and discover how CAAT was formed, what "alternatives" really means, and how much progress has been made since CAAT was established in 1981 @ CAAT - 25 Years Of Human Science - Part 1
|Companies that DO test on animals...
Every single day more than 38,000 animals are used to test cosmetics, toiletries like toothpaste and shampoo, and household detergents and cleaners. The most common test is called the "Draize Test" where products are put directly into the animals’ eyes and technicians record the effects. The "Lethal Dose" test measures the amount of a product it takes to kill part of a group of animals forced to eat it. THESE TESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, but some companies continue to use them to protect themselves from future lawsuits.
As a consumer, you can help by avoiding their products in favor of companies that do not test on animals.
|click for complete list.....
"AltTox.org is a website dedicated to advancing non-animal methods of toxicity testing, both to better protect the health of humans, animals, and the environment and to reduce the numbers and suffering of animals used in current toxicology assessments. The website is designed to encourage the exchange of technical and policy information on in vitro and in silico methods for all types of toxicity tests."
"John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)_is a small, non-profit center. As part of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, we are dedicated to improving health for both people and animals. We promote humane science by supporting the creation, development, validation, and use of alternatives to animals in research, product safety testing, and education."