Then Read On...
idea behind animal experimentation (vivisection) is that if a new drug or
medical procedure is tested on an animal, such as a mouse, rat, cat, dog,
or whatever, then the results of such an experiment would give us an indication
on the effects of that drug or substance on a human patient. We would be
given an indication of its effectiveness (how well it works); its possible
side-effects (how much harm it is likely to cause); as well as its toxicity
(how poisonous the drug or substance is likely to be); right?...WRONG
simple fact is that animals not only respond in different ways to other
animals, but also in different and contradictory ways to people. Animal
experiments are not a help but a hindrance to medical research. If a new
drug or procedure is found to be beneficial to an animal, say a rat, it
would only be beneficial for other rats and cannot be readily transferred
onto other species. Any vet would tell you that most medicines we readily
take could have a catastrophic, even fatal, effect if given to a pet. In
the same way, it would be unwise for us to take a drug intended for a pet
dog, cat, or budgerigar. Besides which, people do not suffer from the same
diseases or illnesses that animals suffer, and vice-versa. The idea that
we can simulate human ills in animals (which animals would not normally
suffer from), create a drug to cure this artificial illness, THEN pass it
on to humans as a safe and reliable cure, is totally absurd.
instance, research into Multiple Sclerosis (which doesn't normally affect
animals) is simulated in a laboratory by injecting fluids into laboratory
animals so that it appears as if the animal has developed MS. The researchers
would then attempt to find a cure for this simulated disease (which occurred
as the result of a fluid being injected into the joints of a laboratory
animal, and not the disease itself) by feeding them with various substances
or drugs. If the researchers were successful and managed to alleviate the
symptoms in the laboratory animals what would it show? Years of meaningless
experiments, costing millions of pounds, and effecting thousands of MS sufferers'
lives, would have been wasted. The only apparent benefit being that the
researchers in question would be guaranteed many years of work and wages,
foolishly following one another up the same blind alley we call medical
research. Incidentally, the research discussed, using the exact same procedures,
is still going on today, and has been for many decades! Is it any wonder
why we are no nearer to finding a cure for Multiple Sclerosis? It is this
foolish reliance on animal experimentation that has seriously retarded medical
research in all fields.
how effective are drugs and medical procedures which have been tested on
animals (how well do they work)? The simple answer is that animal experiments
are a very unreliable indicator of effectiveness in people. Take the case
of the TB vaccine which proved effective in chimpanzees, but was later withdrawn
after it was shown that it actually caused TB in people; or Urethane, a
drug used to treat leukaemia, (which had undergone years of rigorous tests
and experiments on a host of different types and species of animals), proving
to be safe and effective, but was later withdrawn after it had shown to
cause cancer of the liver, lungs, and bone-marrow in people. Barbiturates
(ie, Nembutomol) were prescribed to prevent insomnia, but actually caused
insomnia; or take the case of the heart-drug Epinepherine which caused the
death of 852 heart patients in New York City in late 1982 and early 1983.
Even though the physician in charge of the investigation stated that he
was unable to discover a single surviving case among the 852 patients who
were injected with this drug, Epinepherine was still not withdrawn from
fact that rigorous animal experiments had passed all of these drugs as an
effective treatment or cure for people (and there are thousands of other
instances similar to the ones mentioned) demonstrates that animal experiments
are not a reliable measure of assessing the effectiveness of any new substance
or drug. If anything, they highlight the danger of using animals as an indicator
of effectiveness. On this basis alone, it is clear that all experiments
on animals should be stopped. Unfortunately there is worse to come.
effects of drugs, passed as safe by animal experiments, have caused death,
cancer, blindness, paralysis, psychosis (often leading to suicide) and a
host of other disasters. As far as the predictability of possible side-effects
(how much harm it is likely to cause people), experiments on animals have
shown to be totally useless, if not extremely dangerous.
3 years of rigorous animal experiments, torturing and killing many thousands
of animals, Thalidomide was passed as totally safe for humans. Thalidomide
was prescribed for pregnant women as an anti-nausea drug (morning sickness).
The makers of the drug described it as "the best tranquilliser for
pregnant women as (based on the results of experiments on animals) it damaged
neither the mother nor the child". The side-effects of this drug were
horrendous: over 10,000 children worldwide were born horrifically deformed:
many were born without limbs; many were born with their hands attached to
their elbows (forearms missing); others were born with their feet attached
to their knees (lower-legs missing); others had both forearms and lower
legs missing. Others still, were born with deformities that were so grotesque
that only their torso and head could be recognised as belonging to a human
after the consequences of the drug had been established (which was too late
for the thousands of children and their families) the manufacturers of the
drug, Distillers, showed little remorse and instead decided to market the
drug under a different name! As often happens in such cases, the Health
Authorities voiced no objection. When Thalidomide was eventually withdrawn,
the animal researchers again ran their pathetic tests, experimenting on
many thousands of pregnant animals (even though it had already been established
that Thalidomide caused birth deformities in people), using many hundreds
of different types and species of animals. After some years the researchers
did finally manage to find birth deformities - in 2 types of rabbits (although
over 150 different types of rabbits were used), and in one type of monkey
(out of the many different types of monkeys and apes experimented on)!
(a synthetic oestrogen) was "successfully' tested on animals for years.
Stilboestril created a new type of cancer (Vaginal Cancer) in the daughters
of the mothers who had been prescribed this "miracle drug"; BUT,
the cancer only manifested itself when the daughters were aged between 14
and 22. Once again, experiments on animals had failed to predict this. Isprotenenol
killed approximately 3,500 asthma sufferers in the 1960's. Phenformin (prescribed
for diabetics) was withdrawn after 18 years as it had caused around 1,000
deaths annually. Clofibrate (for the prevention of heart-attacks) was banned
after it had been clinically proven that it did not reduce heart-attacks,
but instead caused death by cancer: mostly of the liver, gall-bladder, and
intestines. Oxychinol (also called Clioquinol) was alleged to cure an upset
stomach. It was originally marketed in Japan under 168 different brand names
and was responsible for creating yet another new type of disease: SMON (a
severe disease of the nervous system). Oxychinol/Clioquinol caused over
1,000 deaths in Japan, as well as over 30,000 cases of blindness and/or
paralysis. A twist in the tale was that some of the animals tested (they
were force-fed the drug) died a painful death. The makers of the drug, Ciba-Geighy,
decided that these deaths were "insignificant' and, as a matter of
precaution, put a note on the leaflet accompanying the drug stating that
Clioquinol should not be given to house pets!
After the catastrophic side-effects of the drug had been realised, Ciba-Geighy
held a press conference and defended the placing of the drug onto the market-place,
despite the painful deaths experienced by an insignificant amount of the
animals, by declaring that they had "regarded the animal tests
as valueless"! Ciba-Geighy went on to say that "95% of drugs tested
on animals fail when given to healthy volunteers and human patients"!
are many tens of thousands of other instances of drugs and substances which
had been passed safe by experiments on animals, but had caused untold damage,
death and disease, all over the world. Animal experiments have demonstrated
time and time again that they are completely useless and have shown just
how foolish it is to transfer their results onto people: their predictive
validity is bordering on the ridiculous. Animals are totally different from
people; different types and species of animals will show up quite different
(if any) side effects. The results obtained from animal experiments are
so unreliable and so unpredictable that, as far as giving even a slight
indication of possible side-effects (some of which may be inevitably fatal),
experimenting on animals is an absolutely senseless practice which has proven,
and is still proving, highly dangerous and unpredictable.
the Thalidomide tragedy, safeguards were put in place by the government
to the effect that every new drug or medical procedure had to be sufficiently
tested for tetragenic effects (their likelihood to cause birth deformities).
Most researchers took this to mean that all new drugs must be thoroughly
tested on pregnant animals: since then, birth deformities have increased
how effective are animal experiments at predicting the toxicity level of
a drug (how dangerous/poisonous is the drug or substance likely to be?)
Unfortunately (if that's the right word to use) animals are so different
to one another that what may be poisonous to one species, may actually be
very healthy for another. It therefore stands to reason that if a drug is
demonstrated to be non-toxic in a laboratory animal, it may not be non-toxic
for people: in fact it may be highly poisonous! If the results obtained
from animal experiments were a reliable indicator of toxicity, then we could
assume that strychnine, for example, (which is highly poisonous for people,
causing a slow, painful, death) is not poisonous, and therefore perfectly
safe: it causes no ill-effects in several different species of laboratory
animals, including mice and chimpanzees. We could also assume that arsenic
(again highly poisonous) is perfectly safe: some animals can munch on it
all day long without any adverse reactions; and the same can be said for
cyanide. What about Amanita Phalloides (a type of mushroom) which is eaten
as a health-food by rabbits, yet a single dose could wipe out an entire
human family. Or consider Scopolamin: just 2 grams can be fatal for any
healthy person, yet dogs and cats can eat hundreds of times that amount
without any kind of bad reaction.
Strychnine was passed as safe in laboratory animals, would you willingly
take it? What about the harmless mushroom? Any reasonably intelligent person
would not take a substance solely on the basis that experiments on animals
had proved them non-poisonous and therefore, safe.
then if a substance had been shown to be poisonous to laboratory animals,
would it be poisonous to humans? Maybe, maybe not. For instance, almonds
are highly poisonous to some animals; Digitalis (the world's most successful
heart drug, which has saved countless lives all over the world) was delayed
for many years because it was first tested in dogs, in which it dangerously
raised blood pressure (the last thing that anybody with heart trouble would
want); Penicillin killed every single animal it was administered to (rabbits
and cats) before it was given to a terminally ill human patient (who lived,
incidentally). Even after this stage Penicillin needed further purification.
In those days the guinea-pig was the favourite tool of the animal researcher.
However, there were no guinea pigs available in the laboratory (they had
all been used up in previous experiments), so mice were used instead. Florey,
the man who purified Penicillin, later remarked that it was "most fortunate"
that penicillin had not been tested on guinea-pigs: it is a lethal poison.
has further been demonstrated (through medical historians) that therapeutic
disasters, which are steadily on the increase today, did not exist before
the imposition of safety tests (toxicity tests) on animals. Take Eraldin
(a cardiotonic), for example, which turned out to be highly poisonous to
people; causing damage to eyes, digestive tract, and ultimately, death,
despite undergoing 7 years of "very intensive" laboratory tests
on animals; or Orabilex, again passed safe in toxicity tests on animals,
but when administered to people it caused kidney damage and death. Again
there a numerous instances where drugs passed safe by animal experiments
have proved highly (even fatally) poisonous to people; and drugs classified
as dangerously poisonous to laboratory animals have turned out to be of
great benefit (even life-saving) to an uncountable number of people. This
once again, as far as toxicity testing is concerned, confirms that the results
obtained from experiments on animals cannot be applied to people. If a substance
or drug was demonstrably poisonous to an animal, it may or may not be poisonous
to a person; if a substance or drug was shown to be totally safe to an animal,
it may prove (as we have seen) to be highly poisonous to a man, woman, boy,
or girl: we simply do not know. It is absolutely impossible to tell if a
substance or drug would be dangerous to people, simply by testing it in
has been demonstrated that animals are so different from people that it
is impossible to assess the effectiveness, side-effects, or level of toxicity
of any drug or substance in laboratory animals, and then transfer that onto
who defend animal experimentation claim that, despite all of their obvious
faults, flaws, misleading results, and human tragedies, animal experiments
are essential because there are no alternatives to using animals in medical
term "alternatives" is a misleading one. It implies that animal
research is a highly plausible option and that any other option is secondary.
This of course is nonsense. Animal research is not highly plausible; it's
not even remotely plausible and should not even be an option which should
be considered. The danger involved in relying on experiments on animals
is so obvious to anybody of even the slightest intelligence.
name you prefer to call it - alternatives to animals; non-animal research;
progressive techniques - this is an extremely wide, highly specialised field;
much wider than the whole field of animal experimentation. We will briefly
take a look at some of these so-called "alternative' methods to demonstrate
just what can be done, and what could have been done from the very beginning.
tissue, and organ cultures: Cultures are available for the study
of practically any disease which could be named, and in a far greater quantity
than is ever needed. They can be prepared from any part of the body, i.e.,
heart, kidney, brain, liver, nerves, skin, and are grown in a culture dish
and covered with a liquid which "feeds" them (in fact any organ
can be kept alive in this way). Drugs and substances can then be tested
on the culture with remarkable speed (100s, perhaps 1000s of times quicker
than testing the same drug or substance on an animal), and with incredible
accuracy (since the culture is a human culture, the results obtained are
directly applicable to humans and are therefore extremely reliable).
are already used widely in medical research to study infections; find out
more about how certain drugs work (their effectiveness), and to study the
effect of drugs or substances in human bodies (toxicity/possible side-effects).
They are of particular value in immunology (immune system of the body) and
toxicology (how poisonous a drug or substance is likely to be in a human),
as well as cancerology, endocrinology, genetics, pathology (the study of
disease), pharmacology (drugs), virology (viruses), radiobiology (effects
of radiation), and tetratology (the study of fetus malformation: or "will
children be born deformed?").
an example: research into arthritis is currently being performed by injecting
fluid into the joints of laboratory animals (exactly the same procedure
as research into Multiple Sclerosis). This is an utterly stupid method as
arthritis is not caused by people having fluids injected into their joints.
This could be more plausibly studied (with a view to curing it) by the examination
of arthritic cartilage (which is normally removed from patients following
injury cases that require the joint to be surgically opened so that corrections
can be made; or from people who have died in accidents), which can be kept
alive in a laboratory for several weeks and its reactions to various drugs
or substances can be observed. The growing number of organisations who have
used cell, organ, or tissue cultures have found them infinitely more useful,
adaptable, and reliable, than animal experiments.
Technology: Computers can be used to test drugs or substances by
mimicking the functions of internal organs on disease (i.e., heart, kidney,
liver, brain), diagnosis, crash and growth studies. Using combined techniques
of spectrometry and chromotography, computers can detect minute traces of
drugs and their breakdown in people. This allows us to study how the human
body will react to these minute traces and show the potential damage or
benefit which the drug or substance would have on a person (these traces
are so minute that there is never any danger to the patient). This technique
allows us, without error, to study the metabolism of a drug in a man/woman
without any damage to him/her, rather than in another species which would
give ambiguous, unreliable answers.
nearly all new drugs are merely made up of substances found in other drugs,
and the effects (whether harmful or beneficial) are already known, cheap
and speedy predictions about the consequences any drug to patients can be
obtained with the use of computers. The computer will, within seconds, make
a statistical prediction on the effects of the drug or substance on a person.
This could further be tested on an organ or cell culture, giving researchers
and doctors a much better idea of what the effect of the drug or substance
would have on a human body than if it was tested on an entirely different
Studies: By far the vast majority of all medical discoveries have
been made by clinical observations (studying people). In fact, clinical
studies and postmortem examinations account for virtually all of the medical,
surgical, and diagnostic breakthroughs that have ever been made. In the
last forty years an enormous amount of evidence has been accumulated by
doctors studying people. Today we know how four out of five cancers are
caused and how most cases of heart disease have developed. Properly used,
this knowledge would prevent millions from unnecessary pain, suffering,
and death. Simply by observing healthy people and patients carefully, the
information gleaned could be used to effectively combat diseases.
a handful of "progressive techniques" have been mentioned here,
but there are many, many more which could have been. Each is far quicker
and far more reliable, accurate, and potentially life-saving than performing
experiments on animals. If vivisection had been outlawed from the start
(which it should have because it has never been an acceptable option), all
of these progressive techniques would have been developed and adopted much
sooner, benefiting medical science incalculably. We would also have been
spared the countless tragedies of which animal research must be held solely
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS CONTUNUE
animal experiments are so dangerous, misleading, and totally unreliable,
why are they relied on so heavily today? One possible reason is that it
is because they are so unreliable, and that different species will react
in different ways to different substances, that experiments on animals are
favoured by researchers. Drugs are constantly being released which have
caused cancer, paralysis, blindness or death, to laboratory animals. This
is of apparently no concern to the drug manufacturers in their attempt to
get their product onto the shelves of the chemist, as long as they can discover
a species, or type, of animal which has shown no visible signs or ill-effect
when force-fed with the substance or drug. If the drug had subsequently
caused serious damage to people, then they (the drug manufacturers) could
argue that all of the necessary safety tests had been carried out on say,
rabbits, cats, dogs, mice, or whatever type of animal had "proved"
that the drug was harmless (this is called "covering one's own hide").
Medical history has borne out the fact that drugs, passed as harmless by
animal tests, have caused cancer, paralysis, blindness, death, etc., in
people. Most of these unfortunate victims (or their bereaved families) who
have tried to sue the drugs company responsible for manufacturing a potentially
harmful substance have found it extremely difficult (almost impossible)
to win their case in a court of law: the drug manufacturers would have "covered
their own hides" and found a type or species of animal that had suffered
no apparent ill-effect from the substance in question, hence they could
claim that the substance or drug had been sufficiently tested and had proven
"totally safe" in laboratory animals (and therefore safe for people).
Those who carry out, and support, animal experimentation are, quite literally,
getting away with murder.
experiments are therefore extremely flexible: they can justify the launch
of a new product ("experiments on rabbits indicated no side effects..."),
or can be rejected and abandoned as irrelevant if anything disastrous should
happen when the product is used by people ("we carried out all the
relevant safety tests, but animals don't react in the same way as people
reason why animal research is portrayed as credible is that, over the years,
they have claimed successes which were not their own. The supporters of
animal experiments have claimed , for instance, that penicillin was tested
in rabbits and cats before being "allowed' to be given to the first
human patient; but fail to point out that all of the rabbits and cats in
question died as a result of being given the drug. They have claimed that
the world's first asthma drug was discovered only through experiments on
animals, but fail to mention that the researcher responsible for the discovery
was opposed to animal experiments and believed that the results of such
experiments could not be applied to people. He instead tested the drugs
on himself to cure his asthma which he brought on through his allergic reaction
to hamsters. They have claimed that blood transfusions only came about after
the discovery of the rhesus factor in experiments on rhesus monkeys, but
fail to mention that experiments on animals delayed blood transfusions for
over 200 years. Nor do they mention that the rhesus factor was discovered
by a New York Doctor in 1939 studying human patients, and published over
a year before the experiments on rhesus monkeys had ever began. Anaesthetics
(another apparent success of animal experiments) owe nothing to animal research.
Morphine, for instance, (known since 1803) was rejected by animal researchers
because it caused maniacal excitement in dogs, cats, and mice. Chloroform
(a clinical discovery in 1828) was successfully used in the first ever anaesthetised
surgical operation, but was later discredited and discarded as an anaesthetic
because experiments on animals (dogs, horses, monkeys, goats, cats, &
rabbits) had shown chloroform to be useless as an anaesthetic!
There are numerous others which could have been mentioned; in fact, all
of the major medical discoveries were discovered without the use of animals,
but the supporters of animal experiments later claimed these successes to
be the direct result of experiments on animals - probably to add some credibility
to their useless line of work which has not advanced, but retarded, medical
progress. This is backed up by a number of medical doctors who have gone
on record as saying that they "cannot think of a single medical breakthrough
that was produced as the result of an animal experiment".
reasons why animal researchers fight so vehemently, or pay others to defend
their trade are numerous: Firstly, if they admit that animal experiments
are of no value this would make a mockery of their work. Their achievements
would be permanently discredited; and their professional lives would have
been wasted. Secondly they are reluctant to change their ways: they have
been brought up to believe in animal experiments that no amount of evidence
or reasoning can cause them to change their minds. Thirdly, they would have
to learn new skills: how the human body works (most have no medical qualifications),
as well as complex statistical procedures (which at present they lack, nor
probably have the intelligence to learn). Most frightening of all, drugs
companies have a vested interest in selling drugs (the more drugs they sell,
the more money they make). They do not really want diseases to be cured.
They make far more money out of temporarily alleviating symptoms than they
would if they actually cured diseases; and make nothing at all out of advice
which prevents disease. In other words, they have a vested interest in people
becoming (and staying) ill.
yourself why animals are still used for research into human cancer, for
instance, when other methods have proven to be more speedy and reliable?
If a cure was found for cancer tomorrow, it would mean that thousands of
researchers and billions of pounds a year would be lost, and the whole of
the cancer-research industry would be permanently ruined. Why then, do you
think that research into human disease is largely performed by experiments
all animal experiments were abolished today then new drugs would have to
be tested in a more reliable way. The vast majority of drugs would never
be allowed to be used by people since their effects would already be known.
Within a few years, the world's largest drugs companies would become bankrupt.
Is this then, the real reason why animal experiments continue today: greed?
It can't be because animal experiments are reliable, effective, that they
predict side-effects, indicate the poisonous of a drug, and they cannot
possibly show how a substance would react if given to a human - they fail
on every single one of these counts. It is clear that animal experiments
should be abolished immediately.
animal experiments were stopped today, they would never be brought back
and medicine could advance at the same rate the rest of technology is advancing,
instead of remaining static in a retarded Pre-Victorian era. "When
animal experiments are finally abolished, doctors and scientists will look
back in disbelief and laugh at today's laboratories where animals are used
to test new drugs intended for people" (Dr. Vernon Coleman, M. D.).
Vernon Coleman has once again thrown out a challenge to television stations
calling for a live debate on animal experiments. Although he has been trying
for several years, no vivisectors have had the bottle to debate the subject
with him on TV. As a result he has issued the following statement:
are 20,000 vivisectors in Britain. I believe they are evil. They claim that
animal experiments are essential - and that without them human beings would
die. But I believe the scientific evidence clearly shows that animal experiments
help no-one. I don't think any patient has ever been saved by animal experiments.
But I do believe that thousands have been killed because of them. I honestly
believe that anyone who claims animal experiments are essential or even
useful is either an ignorant fool or a lying, scheming b******. In my view,
vivisectors are as weak as they are ignorant, as gutless as they are pitiless.
I repeat the public challenge I have made scores of times before to ALL
vivisectors. Meet me in a full debate on live TV. Tragically, I fear the
vivisectors will not respond. For I suspect that in addition to being evil
they are all cowards. Please send a copy of this challenge to your local
university and your local TV station. Let's see if we can smoke one or two
of the mean-spirited low-life bastards out of the woodwork and into the
bright lights of debate. If these toxic monsters won't debate with me you'll
know why. They won't defend what they do because deep down in their shrivelled,
malignant little hearts they know they are wrong, they know I am right.
And they know that they will lose."
OpEdNews: Stephen Motson - Writer