Why animal testing hurts people as well as people.
Animal testing is not good science, and certainly not worthy of a species that prides itself on being humane. Many scientists and medical practitioners are speaking out about these cruel testing procedures that kills millions of animals each year. Animals burnt, cut, drowned, strapped, poisoned, starved, and hacked, for the "purposes" of cosmetic testing, household and garden products testing, medical testing, military testing, creation of deadly viruses for combat, drug manufacture, personal hygiene products including toothpastes, confectionery, crash experimentation, and just about anything you can think of, and even in ways and reasons you could not possibly imagine.
When is a dog, cat, rat, pig, horse, cow, rabbit, monkey, a human being? The answer is obvious, NEVER! We do not go to a vet to seek help when we are sick; we don't eat our cat's pills when we have a headache, A human's anatomy is NOT a rabbit's or even a monkey's anatomy. Every animal is different. What affects one type of animal one way, affects another type of animal in another way. A guinea pig will die if fed aspirin. A horse tranquillizer will speed up a human's heart rate.
Extensive animal testing, using different types of animals, was done on the drug Thalidomide before it was released as SAFE to pregnant human mothers; the result, severe human baby deformities. Of course, because there was "considerable financial investment" by drug companies in the development of Thalidomide, they have now re-released it for human consumption under another name for a different use.
Torturing and killing animals in order to prove or disprove a theory has been around for a very long time, but if we are to progress as a species, and the fact that there are practical, effective alternatives, then should we not leave behind the archaic cruel practices of earlier times, for a more evolved, beneficial approach?
Why has vivisection continued on for so long despite its cruelty, waste of life, ineffectiveness. It has continued
1. Because the most horrific of experiments are hidden behind closed doors. Most of us do not see or hear about the most abhorrent experiments.
2. It continues because of the marketing of these procedures as necessary. They tell us that without these tests on non-human animals, humans would be putting themselves at risk. If that were the case, how do they explain Thalidomide and the many thousands of drugs that are released causing side-effects, mild and severe, some even causing death, that are released each year? These drugs have all been widely tested on non-human animals and "proved safe" but shown that they are NOT safe for humans.
3. Animal Testing is a multi-billion dollar industry, There are companies that sell animal "products" - cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, and other animals breed in laboratories in tiny cages, to be sold off to be used in one or more experiments, and then killed, if they haven't already died as a result of painful, destructive, toxic tests. While many animals that end up in experiments are bred, there are many other animals that are captured from the wild, in particular monkeys and primates. When these animals are caught, the mothers of these animals are usually killed too, in order to get the babies away from their mothers: Another "profitable" business! There are companies whose sole focus is providing equipment, housing and feed for animals to be tortured and killed in labs. Then there are the institutes and scientists that apply for hefty grants in order to inflict pain, suffering and death, supposedly in the name of human advancement.
We have been brainwashed into believing that animal testing is acceptable, crucial, even admirable, because we are told that this torture is helping humanity "advance" .If human advancement could truly be achieved on the backs of thousands upon thousands of non-human animals being tortured to death, what progress would we really achieve? A humanity that is so out of touch with its compassion, and indeed its humanity, that we have lost far more than we could ever hope to gain.
Is animal testing necessary? There are many scientists and doctors who tell us that it certainly is NOT necessary. In fact, that animal testing is dangerous to humanity, as well as time and money wasting, and ineffective.
Does animal testing help human medicine?
33 facts to consider
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
8) Rodents, which are often used in cancer research, never get carcinomas - the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: this logically rules out a comparison between the two.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to humans.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) According to animal tests, lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a drug treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to erroneous results obtained through vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. All of these drugs would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Animal testing resulted in a 200 year delay on the introduction of blood transfusions and a ninety year delay on corneal transplants.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, less than half agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) Over 450 research methods are currently available which could more efficiently replace animal experimentation.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, 33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
A detailed list of references for this article can be located here.
List compiled by V.I.N., P O Box 223, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 5ZU. Email: email@example.com
I cannot think of a single major breakthrough that was produced as a result of an animal experiment. I wonder how many more million animals have to be sacrificed before we abandon the useless and barbaric practice of animal experimentation.' - Dr Vernon Coleman, Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.
`The idea, as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in laboratory experimentation on lower animals and are then applied to the problems of the sick patient. Having been myself trained as a physiologist, I feel in a way competent to assess such a claim. It is plain nonsense.' - Sir George Pickering, Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford University.
`Experiments on animals are not a fitting way to research or heal human ailments. The results of animal experiments do not enable any sure conclusions to be drawn with regard to human beings. Due to diverse organic and psychological differences between humans and animals, knowledge obtained from animals can be not only worthless, but also misleading and harmful for humans.' - Doctors Against Animal Experiments Association, West Germany.
`It has been demonstrated that results from animal experiments are in no way applicable to human beings. There is a natural law connected with metabolism (the aggregate of all physical and chemical processes constantly taking place in living organisms), according to which a biochemical reaction that has been established for one species is valid only for that particular species and not for others. Oftentime two closely related species like the rat and mouse may react in a completely different way.'
- Dr Gianni Tamino, Department of Biology,
University of Padua.
"Since animals don't get human diseases and humans don't get animal diseases, vivisection cannot work." - Gary Yourofsky -
As far back as February, 2004, an article in the British Medical Journal suggested that animal experimentation is an outdated paradigm producing inconsistent and species-specific results.
2011 - Millions of animals still suffer and die in laboratories that specialize in toxicology (poisoning tests) or vivisection.
(Above excerpt from Loud for Animals)
This year, the building of the Oxford animal lab has triggered the most important conflict between scientists and the animal rights movement for a century.
It began on 30 November 2005, when building work restarted on Oxford University's controversial £18 million animal experimentation laboratory - after contractors had pulled out previously after a campaign of threats and intimidation.
For the past year, RTS award-winning documentary director Adam Wishart (the author of ONE IN THREE: a son's journey into the history and science of cancer) has had a ring-side seat at the heart of the conflict. It's a story about how scientists who had been too scared to talk found a voice thanks to the campaigning efforts of a 16-year- old. And about the animal rights activists, who have been prepared to do anything in the face of an ever more determined Government.
The documentary has unprecedented access to all sides. It hears from Professor Tipu Aziz, a brain surgeon and experimenter on monkeys - one of the few Oxford scientists prepared to speak out. The programme follows an operation - which was partly developed using monkeys - by Prof Aziz on 13-year-old disabled boy. Will he walk again?
Cameras also follow animal rights activist Mel Broughton as he does his utmost to prevent construction continuing. And Laurie Pycroft, the 16-year-old founder of the Pro-Test movement campaigning for animal experimentation.
Beyond the shouting there is a moral question. Oxford University has given unprecedented access to the animal houses to reveal what happens to monkeys in experiments, and to rats as electrodes are inserted into their brains. Over the course of the film, Adam Wishart attempts to determine if these experiments are effective? And even if they are, are they ethical?
Finally some good news! Watch these beagles, rescued from a bankrupt laboratory, taking their first steps out of a cage and on to the grass. They were bred and kept indoors without natural light, for their whole lives until this moment.
Scarlett the Chimp subjected to 23 horrendous years of research.
"Biomedical research does not need animals. It is foolish and even dangerous to follow this traditional way. The difference between man and animal is so great that it usually leads us into error’." - Professor Luigi Sprovieri, paper presented at Symposium on Thoracic Surgery, Sorreno, February 1980.
More than thirty-two animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
Excerpt from Medical Journal - Article by Dr Vernon Coleman `Betrayal of Trust’.
Companies invariably report having performed experiments on pregnant animals but then often go on to admit ... 'the relevance of these studies to human beings is not known'.
It is difficult to avoid asking the question: 'Why do the studies, if the relevance is not known?' A huge number of drug companies seem to be doing animal tests without knowing their relevance to human patients.
On other occasions drug companies report that animal experiments have shown that their drugs cause problems (in animal test subjects) - but that human experience suggests that the drug is entirely safe so the animal experiments can be safely ignored!
In some examples drug companies seem uncertain about the significance of the animal experiments which have been done. If the relevance of the animal experiments is not known or the experiments cannot be relied upon then why on earth does anyone do them?
`Vivisection is the Inquisition—the Hell—of Science. All the cruelty which the human—or rather the inhuman—heart is capable of inflicting, is in this one word. Below this there is no depth. This word lies like a coiled serpent at the bottom of the abyss…
I know that good for the human race can never be accomplished by torture’. - Robert Green Ingersoll
“Vivisection corrupts the character, because it teaches you to attach no importance to the pain you inflict.” - Dr Abel Desjardins, former President of the French Society of Surgeons.
'I looked through the window when just (dog) 4055 remained. Normally he is very stoic and calm, but today I saw him barking frantically and dancing all around his cage in the empty room.
When he saw me looking at him, his barking became hysterical and I had to walk away. I could not even go in to give him one last reassuring word. I was his last chance in those final moments before death and there was nothing I could do to help him'. - (From the diary of Michelle Rokke, undercover worker at HLS)
`Any tests on animals can only demonstrate that a drug is harmless for the particular species on which the drug is tried, it doesn't mean it is harmless also to man. And vice versa. This rule has no exceptions.' - Hans Ruesch - “Slaughter of the Innocent”
`One can conduct experiments with many other methods which offer three advantages: scientific reliability; time saving (results obtainable with laboratory animals in six months can be obtained in two weeks with `in vitro' cells); lower costs. Then why does one continue experimenting with animals? This is to be explained first of all with mental and cultural backwardness. And further, because old fashioned laws prescribe animals experiments in order to obtain permission for the sale of medicines. The present law must be abolished. Animal experimentation is fallacious, useless, expensive and furthermore cruel.'
- Dr Gianni Tamino, Department of Biology, University of Padua.
Description of an actual experiment - Source: A History of Anti-vivisection (http://brebisnoire.wordpress.com/a-history-of-antivivisection-from-the-1800s-to-the-present-part-i-mid-1800s-to-1914/) A pro-animal experimentation article.
Nelson’s written account describes the dog as being in a state of “profound insensibility” after four minutes of ether inhalation, and the experiments as consisting of a series of incisions and amputations: removal of an ear, an incision from the hind leg extending to the neck, partially flayed open, followed by amputation of a foreleg. At that point, Nelson’s vivisection was interrupted by a clinical visit to a patient. When he returned, he proceeded to remove the other ear, but noted that the dog’s “violent efforts and cries giving everyone present to understand, that he was no more sleeping.” The dog was then “instantly strangled”, putting an “end to his sufferings.” Nelson went on to obtain a second dog within a few days and he performed another series of experiments to “prove conclusively, if full confidence could be placed on the effects of the inhalation.” The graphic account of the experiments contains sensually descriptive and emotional language, and Nelson himself called the sessions “cruel and lengthy”:
Several deep incisions were made in the muscles of the back…and I once more applied the poker to staunch the bleeding of several small arteries; not a moan was heard, not the least starting of a nerve was perceptible…by means of a crucial incision, I laid open the abdominal cavity and took out upon the table the mass of intestines; my students had then the advantage of a demonstration of the peristaltic motion of those organs…the liver and spleen torn and wounded…10
At the end of the experiment, the dog was allowed to wake, whereupon he tried to “lick his numerous wounds and…to rise, but was so much exhausted by the profuse loss of blood that he fell back on the table.” At that point, this animal was also strangled.
Another part of the article states: "...we can save living beings from death only after sacrificing others."
(GMP Publisher: Personally that sounds like an oxymoron, or maybe simply moronic: a "God Complex". Who decides whose life is worth taking and whose life is worth saving? When we believe we are a worthy judge of who lives and dies, we have put ourselves among the realm of demi-gods, and unworthy demi-gods at that. If we ascribe to the idea of God/Universe of Love and LIght, we ascribe to an all-encompassing loving Source of life, in which every living thing is a part of the same spiritual family, and as such, deserves respect and compassion. When we justify cruelty for our own ends, we have degraded our humanity, and any goal which we would consider using such inhumane procedures. It is interesting to note that vivisectionists justify this abhorrent treatment of animals, by listing vivisection together with other horrific ways we humans treat non-human animals as why (cruel) animal experimentation is acceptable. Seems like they haven't heard that "two wrongs don't make a right"? )
The following OPEN LETTER was originally printed in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, April 28, 1991.
Physicians, Scientists, and other Health Professionals reject ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
(We represent thousands of concerned health professionals who oppose animal experimentation - vivisection. We'd like you to know why.)
False Promises, False Claims
The biomedical research industry's claim that our health and survival depend on vivisection is patently false. Animal experiments fail to address the true causes of human disease. Our illnesses are a result of numerous factors - lifestyle, environmental toxins, genetics, poverty, etc. - which cannot be recreated in animals. In fact, information derived from animals is misleading and often dangerous when applied to humans.
Historically, clinical practice with astute deductive reasoning has resulted in the major health improvement. The discovery of penicillin and digitalis, the development of x-rays, the microscope, and hygienic principles of infection control, are just a few of the examples that owe nothing to animal experimentation. To justify its consumption of public health resources, the vivisection industry credits itself with important developments, but in reality:
- The practice of open heart surgery was delayed by at least ten years by misleading dog experiments.
- `Work on (polio) prevention was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.' - Dr Albert Sabin
- Scientific studies have shown that modern improvements in longevity are due not to animal-tested medicines, but to better sanitation, nutrition, and other living conditions.
No Miracle Cures
People and animals alike suffer from the futility of vivisection:
- Heart disease is still the number one cause of death. Yet recent human patient studies prove that it is preventable and reversible through lifestyle changes, including diet.
- Animal research has failed to stem a four-fold increase in birth defects over the last forty years. Easter Seals now funds only non-animal studies.
- While three animals die every second in U.S. laboratories, one in three Americans can expect to contract cancer in their lifetimes.
`It is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in regard to cancer in man by experimenting on animals.' - Robert Bell, M.D., Vice President, International Cancer Research Society.
Vivisection Squanders Scarce Health Care Dollars
The U.S. spends $600 billion per year (12% of the U.S. GNP) on illness treatment - more than any other country in the world. Yet our health care system is in a shambles.
The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than 22 other developed nations. Tens of millions of Americans have no access to health care. Trauma, mental health and drug rehabilitation centres are closing for lack of funds. Efforts to rid the environment of disease-causing toxins are severely underfunded.
Vivisection is Unspeakably Cruel
Behind the locked doors of thousands of institutions, atrocities are inflicted on frightened animal subjects. They have no rights, no voice or representation, and no way of escape. Breeding farms, public pounds, and stolen pet dealers provide an endless supply of innocent victims. For example, millions of animals a year die painfully for useless products testing just to provide liability protection for manufacturers.
`I can find no evidence that the Draize Test, LD-50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the `safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species...' - Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, MO
Vivisection is Big Business
Biomedical `research' is a vast, lucrative industry, supported each year by $15 billion in taxes and charity...while killing 65 to 100 million animals. Animal experimenters guard a privileged status with an enormous financial network of charities, and control the Federal agencies for health science funding. This multi-billion dollar industry is self-perpetuating, self-monitoring and self-congratulating. Meanwhile our health care system is self-destructing.
`The real choice is not between dogs and children, it is between good science and bad science; between methods that directly relate to humans and those that do not.' - Robert Sharpe, Ph. D., The Cruel Deception, 1988.
`I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.' - Dr Charles Mayo, Founder Mayo Clinic New York Daily News, March 13, 1961.
All our energies and resources must be committed to productive endeavours such as preventative medicine and research methodologies which related directly to human beings including ethical human-based research, human tissue testing, and population studies (epidemiology). It is time to embrace ways of living and learning that are self-sustaining, non-polluting, and respectful of all life. Only then will our health-care goals be realized.
Kenneth P. Stoller, M.D., Pediatrics • J. Leichtberg, M.D. • Kathleen Waddell, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist • Paula Kislak, D.V.M. • Sam Snyder, Ph.D., M.P.H. • Jonathan Lemler, D.C. • Kathy Macleary, Ph.D. •
Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., M.P.H. • L.J. Marx, M.D., Psychiatry • Susan Sterwart, R.N. • Elliot Katz, D.V.M. • Richard S. Benedon, M.D., F.A.C.E.P., Emergency Medicine • Julie Fernee, R.N. • Donald E. Doyle, M.D., F.A.C.S., Otolaryngology & Facial Plastic Surgery • Joan Priestley, M.D., General Medicine • Cheryl Anne Reller, R.N. • A. Yvonne Miles, M.S.N., C.C.R.N. • Joseph Nielands, Ph.D., Biochemistry • Harry J. Silver, M.D. • Les Stewart, D.D.S. • Charles Kuell, Ph.D., Family Counseling • Richard S. Blinstrub, M.D., Dermatology • Nedim C. Buyukmihei, V.M.D. • Michael Klaper, M.D., General Medicine.
Can you imagine the amount of suffering and fear this poor bunny is enduring? And this is only one example of the MILLIONS of animals that are used in research each year. Can this be classified as science or a horror film come to life? Find out more here.
In the UK alone - each day these animals die in research labs - Mice 7342 per day - one every 12 seconds; Fish 1545 per day - one every 56 seconds; Rats 744 per day - one every 1.9 minutes; Birds 466 per day - one every 3 minutes; Sheep 103 per day - one every 14 minutes; Rabbits 42 per day - one every 34 minutes; Amphibians
44 per day - one every 33 minutes; Guinea Pigs 32 per day - one every 46 minutes;
Dogs 12 per day - one every 115 minutes; Primates 7 per day - one every 3 1/2 hours;
Hamster 5 per day - one every 4 hours; Cattle 14 per day - one every 1 hour 43 minutes; Pigs 12 per day - one every 2 hours; Gerbils and other rodents
11 per day - one every 2 hours 15 minutes; Reptiles one every 23 hours; Cats
one every 37 hours. (In the US, many more animals die each day in constant pain and fear.)
.How YOU can stop the barbaric use of animal testing!
1. Buy products which animal welfare groups certify are not tested on animals.
2. Do NOT donate to charities that fund research UNLESS they certify that animals are not used in their testing procedures.
3. Opt for complimentary healing techniques and products, where possible, for they are not tested on animals.
4. Avoid purchasing ANY product from companies known to be involved in animal testing. You may be surprised at the number of huge companies that fund expensive and cruel experiments on animals.
5. Do your homework. Don't just accept that a company does not test on animals because they, or a salesperson, says the company does not. Search out the truth about the company, institutes, products, or research, from animal welfare organizations and animal-friendly/compassionate lists, either online, books, or provided by animal welfare organizations themselves.
6. Sign petitions to help stop * animal testing *capture of animals from the wild for vivisection *companies which transport animals for testing *companies that supply or breed animals or animal testing *companies that provide the equipment and food for animal testing *scientists intending to use animals for testing.
7. Let your local and federal government representatives know that you oppose vivisection on grounds that it is not only cruel and grossly expensive, but ineffective and dangerous to human health. Inform them that animal welfare is important to you and your vote would be influenced by the implementation of policies and laws that support considerate treatment of animals.
8. Share information that relates to the cruelty and ineffectiveness of animal testing. Pass on this information whenever and where ever possible.
Loud for Animals
"Slaughter of the Innocent" by Hans Ruesch
`I was absolutely convinced of the scientific validity of vivisection; a conviction that had been forced on me during my university studies and has conditioned me for many years thereafter. So I now define myself `a criminal victim'. I was the victim of a stupidity that had been imposed on me. At a certain moment of my life...I realized its uselessness. Actually, one doesn't have to be a genius to understand that vivisection is an aberration, a foolish practice which leads medicine astray. And this in turn means causing millions of human victims. Let's keep in mind that we all are victims of toxic drugs, of wrong medical notions and illusions.’ - Peitro Croce MD, Member of the College of American Pathologists.
“Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.” - George Bernard Shaw, playwright (1856-1950):
“I believe I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.” - Mark Twain, American lecturer, writer and humorist (1835-1910):
(If both Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw, quotes above, knew that it did not even truly advance science, they would have been even more opposed to this heinous treatment of animals.)
The word "anthropomorphism" has lost it potency. Many people concerned about the welfare of non-human animals have been accused of anthropomorphism, which is, attaching human-like feelings and responses to non-human animals. Pro-vivisection people say that animals are like humans physically and that is why we can extrapolate to humans, results acquired from testing on rats, cats, dogs, monkeys and other animals.. However, it is obvious that these other species are not like us physically; they do not possess the same anatomy or appearance, and results gained from testing on these dissimilar creatures have provided a plethora of false results. These erroneous test results gained from animal testing have lead to the release of drugs "proven safe" causing side-effects in humans, ranging from mild to severe, some even resulting in human deaths.
Despite those supporting animal testing stating that animals are like humans physically, when they are clearly not, they state on the other hand, that animals are not like humans when it comes to feelings and emotions, and anyone who does not agree with their view are accused of anthropomorphism. However, evidence and examples abound that non-human animals possess feelings of love, fear, appreciation, stress, confusion, longing, need for comfort and safety, joy, sadness even depression. Some animals even laugh and express their joy through vocalizations. Animals communicate, enjoy family relationships and friendships, some even call each other by individual names (dolphins). Primates, elephants, and dolphins, when seeing themselves in a mirror do not mistake the reflection as another animal that looks like them, but recognize the reflection as themselves. In these ways, animals ARE like humans. However, whenever someone reports examples of feelings in animals, those who are in favour of vivisection accuse that person of simply being emotional and irrational. Logic and observation shows us clearly, that other animals do not look like us, and we can see from previous animal studies that other species do not react as we do to drugs or procedures. We can also see that non-human animals love their babies, protect them with their lives, and play with them. That animals fear hurt and danger. That they grieve when an animal or person they love has been hurt or dies. If we are going to rely on logic, animal testing would be banned immediately for more effective, humane ways of acquiring scientific information.
`I was absolutely convinced of the scientific validity of vivisection; a conviction that had been forced on me during my university studies and has conditioned me for many years thereafter. So I now define myself `a criminal victim'. I was the victim of a stupidity that had been imposed on me. At a certain moment of my life...I realized its uselessness. Actually, one doesn't have to be a genius to understand that vivisection is an aberration, a foolish practice which leads medicine astray. And this in turn means causing millions of human victims. Let's keep in mind that we all are victims of toxic drugs, of wrong medical notions and illusions.’
- Peitro Croce MD, Member of the College of American Pathologists.
Information on Animal Testing and Alternatives provided by Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine can be found here.
Effective Alternatives to Animal Testing
Here are just a few examples:
(Above Information courtesy of PETA)
Did you know the first company to use animal testing to test their cosmetic products was Ponds Olay? Did you also know that even though Avon has been claiming for many years that they have not been testing on animals, in 2012 it was discovered that Avon had secretly been testing their products on animals.
Excerpt from "The Source of Life" by Sarina Damen
ANIMAL RESEARCH & ALTERNATIVES
`As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know peace or health. For as long as men massacre animals they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.' - Pythagoras 6th Century BC
Can animals be considered suitable research tools on which to accurately deduce the safety and application of particular drugs and medical techniques for the benefit of humankind?
`The idea, as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in laboratory experimentation on lower animals and are then applied to the problems of the sick patient. Having been myself trained as a physiologist, I feel in a way competent to assess such a claim. It is plain nonsense.' - Sir George Pickering, Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford University.
Famous British surgeon Dr Lawson Tait, pioneer of such operations as ovariotomy, hysterectomy, cholecystectomy and appendectomy stated that he ceased experimenting on animals because surgical techniques developed on non-human animals were not applicable to the human species, and only served to hinder the development of relevant surgical procedures.
In England, a country which produces some of the world's finest surgeons, practice surgery on animals has been banned for many years. Medical students are taught by the observation of techniques and operations as they are performed by experienced surgeons, and by working on human cadavers.
`Experiments on animals are not a fitting way to research or heal human ailments. The results of animal experiments do not enable any sure conclusions to be drawn with regard to human beings. Due to diverse organic and psychological differences between humans and animals, knowledge obtained from animals can be not only worthless, but also misleading and harmful for humans.'- Doctors Against Animal Experiments Association, West Germany.
`It has been demonstrated that results from animal experiments are in no way applicable to human beings. There is a natural law connected with metabolism (the aggregate of all physical and chemical processes constantly taking place in living organisms), according to which a biochemical reaction that has been established for one species is valid only for that particular species and not for others. Often time two closely related species like the rat and mouse may react in a completely different way.' - Dr Gianni Tamino, Department of Biology, University of Padua.
Different species react to chemical substances in different ways. What is safe for one species may cause birth defects, cancer or even immediate death in another. For example, penicillin is considered helpful to the human species but is deadly to guinea pigs, and arsenic is fatal to humans while it is safe for sheep.
A large number of drugs found to be `safe' for humans through animal testing have caused permanent injury and even death, because chemical compounds affect animals in ways unique to their particular species. This is due to variances in `pathways of metabolism, absorption into the bloodstream, distribution to the site of action, the mechanism of action and the organism's metabolism and elimination of substance'.
`Any tests on animals can only demonstrate that a drug is harmless for the particular species on which the drug is tried, it doesn't mean it is harmless also to man. And vice versa. This rule has no exceptions.' 59.
It has been proven that extensive animal testing cannot verify whether a particular drug is absolutely safe for humans. This is illustrated by the long list of drugs apparently determined as harmless which caused such problems as intestinal hamorrhage, cancer, kidney damage, leukemia, blindness, viral hepatitis and even death.
Drugs taken off the market due to serious side-effects in humans, originally deemed safe because of the misleading results attained through animal experimentation, include the following - Azauracil, Mitoxantrone, Chloramphenicol, Ibufenac, Flosint, Zipeprol, Phenacetin, Amydroprine, Eraldin, Reserpine, Methotrexate, Urethane, Mitotane, Cyclophosphamide, Isoniazid, Kanamycin, Chlormycetin, Clinoquinol, MEL29, Methaqualone, Isopreterenol, Trilergen, Flamamil, Phenformin, Atromid S, Maxiton, Mebutol, Plaxin, Pronap, E Ferol, Accutane, Zomax, Clofibrate, Feldene, Benedectin, Stilboestrol, Practolol and Thalidomide (a drug which was not marketed in Turkey as non-animal testing revealed this substance to be potentially detrimental to humans).
Animal testing never detects other less damaging but nevertheless distressing human responses to drugs such as dizziness, amnesia, depression and headaches. In addition, this type of experimentation never reveals the harmful accumulatory nature of some substances in the human organism.
Animal experimentation has not only proven to be misleading and therefore potentially dangerous to humankind, but a number of animal species are threatened with extinction due to their use in animal research. Chimpanzees* and more than thirty other types of primates are listed as endangered species as a consequence of this type of exploitation.
* Thousands of chimpanzees are being captured in the wild, and the black market trade in the animals has doubled over recent years, mainly due to the huge demand for them for AIDS experiments. Approximately 2000 chimps were sold in 1990 and zoologists believe that ten chimps die for every one that reaches the laboratory.
`More than 20,000 (chimpanzees) may have died last year out of a total wild population of 150,000. Scientists will be seeking thousands more chimps over the next four years to test AIDS vaccines. The Chimpanzee is already extinct in four African countries and one American zoologist, Dr Geza Teleki, believes the chimps will be extinct in the wild within 20 years unless the trade is stopped.' (Source:International Primate Protection League).
The threatened obliteration of these species unique genetic make-up supports the argument for the replacement of animal experimentation with a more accurate means of testing which does not necessitate the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayer's money on cruel experiments, and through which more reliable data is obtained within weeks rather than years.
Alternatives which have proven to be cost effective and humane as well as more dependable than animal experimentation include chromatography, cell transformation assays, chromosome damage tests, DNA systems, mass spectometry, quantum pharmacology, mechanical models and simulators, microvascular surgery on discarded placentas, controlled studies of volunteer's diets scrutinising vitamin content and conditions affecting rates of disease, surveys of diseases in other cultures analysing lifestyles and diets, human case studies, autopsy reports, the skin culture system, the Amés test and statistical analyses of the effects of various factors on the incidence of disease.
`One can conduct experiments with many other methods which offer three advantages: scientific reliability; time saving (results obtainable with laboratory animals in six months can be obtained in two weeks with `in vitro' cells); lower costs. Then why does one continue experimenting with animals? This is to be explained first of all with mental and cultural backwardness. And further, because old fashioned laws prescribe animals experiments in order to obtain permission for the sale of medicines. The present law must be abolished. Animal experimentation is fallacious, useless, expensive and furthermore cruel.'- Gianni Tamino, Department of Biology, University of Padua.
One of the most horrific consequences of animal research is the desensitization of many of those continually inflicting pain in the name of `science', purportedly for the betterment of the human race.
`The first time I saw a brutal experiment on an unanesthetized animal I wished to leave the room; I was sickened by it. The next time I was less affected, and with every experiment I was able to look on at the most terrible things without my emotions being moved in any way...I submit that what occurred in my case probably occurs to everybody...' Surgeon Stephen Smith - Testimony to the Second Royal Commission Report (U.K.).
Those who can experiment with a `clear conscience' on lower animals can become hardened to the cries of pain and the look of terror, and in search of a `better' research tool some have turned to the use of defenceless humans. Author Hans Ruesch in his best-selling book `Slaughter of the Innocent' reported on a number of bizarre cases of experimentation on humans.
Some of the more disturbing examples involved the injection and electrocution of senile (Gloucester, England 1959) and diseased women (Naples 1972) to `restore them to normal' and the use of the intellectually disabled (New York 1958), orphaned children (U.S. 1975), and newborn babies (Arkansas 1962).
"One time director of the psychological laboratory of John Hopkins University, Dr John B. Watson...described dropping newborn children just when they were falling asleep to test "loss of support", robbing of toys, letting them be bullied, placing acid in their mouths and...burning or pricking or cutting babies which produced crying and screaming and an attempt to escape the pain by withdrawing the body.'
`We were rather loath at first to conduct experiments in this field...but the need of study was so great that we finally decided to build up fears in the infant and then later to study practical methods for removing them. We chose as our first subject Albert B., an infant weighing 21 pounds at 11 months of age...He had lived his whole life in the hospital. He was a wonderfully good baby. In all the months we worked with him we never saw him cry until our experiments were made.
To make Albert cry, a white rat which had been his playmate for weeks was presented to him, and just as he reached for the rat, a steel bar was struck with a carpenter's hammer right behind his head. Albert jumped violently, burying his face in the mattress. The experiment was repeated until the infant was a nervous wreck. He began to cry as soon as the rat was shown, fell over, raised himself on all fours, and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before he reached the edge of the mattress. Finally the infant was frightened by everything he had played with.' " 60.
Grants from governmental and private sources enabled these researchers to carry out their abhorrent experiments - research which was continued with another seventy children ranging in age from three months to seven years, while another forty-two infants ranging from eleven days to two and a half years were subjected to experiments aimed at investigating responses to submersion in water (Source: American Journal of Pediatrics 1939).
In Italy during the early part of the 1970's at least three separate cases of experimentation on defenceless humans was documented, including one in which twenty women suffering from various ailments and confined to hospital beds had a concentrated solution of cortisone deposited in their eyes in an experiment to study the formation of cataracts. In the U.S. during the mid 1970's, research into the use of surgical treatment to cure children of hyper-activity left a percentage of subjects (orphaned black children) with 25% vision loss while other children were left severely retarded as a result of lobotomies.
`I was absolutely convinced of the scientific validity of vivisection; a conviction that had been forced on me during my university studies and has conditioned me for many years thereafter. So I now define myself `a criminal victim'. I was the victim of a stupidity that had been imposed on me. At a certain moment of my life...I realized its uselessness. Actually, one doesn't have to be a genius to understand that vivisection is an aberration, a foolish practice which leads medicine astray. And this in turn means causing millions of human victims. Let's keep in mind that we all are victims of toxic drugs, of wrong medical notions and illusions.
There is no correlation even between man and man...the human species is divided into four major blood groups, each one very different from the others.
Today every vivisector's ultimate wish is to experiment on monkeys, because, with an incredible biological ignorance, he considers that close to human beings, just owing to their appearance or because they are able to walk more or less erect. But the researchers don't stop at monkeys.' - Peitro Croce MD, Member of the College of American Pathologists.
Another example of this progression from horrific animal experimentation to the testing of human subjects was revealed in 1991 by World Weekly News. Dr Walter Kreiter and Dr Henry Kuhrig claimed to have successfully applied a technique which has been used on monkeys for a number of years. They delivered a paper to an international medical authority in Paris in which they claimed to have kept the severed head of an accident victim alive in a private Leipzig hospital for twenty days. They stated that the patient was able to communicate by blinking his eyes in response to questions.
Many people assume that animal testing is needed to effect medical and scientific progress - an assumption which has been proven to be invalid. Many important medical breakthroughs have already been attained without the use of animal experimentation. Some of these accomplishments include digitalis for the control of heart disease; quinine; aspirin; penicillin; the development of painkillers derived from opiates and lithium compounds; iodine; disinfectants; asceptic techniques; anaesthetics such as acupuncture, ether, chloroform, nitrous oxide and lumbar anaesthesia; treatments for pernicious anaemia and puerperal fever; streptomycin; cephalosporins; microscope; blood pressure cuff; hypodermic syringe; bacteriology; cardiac catheter; x-ray; thermometer; stethoscope; computerised axial tomography (CAT scan); ophthalmoscope; blood transfusion; blood typing; surgical procedures to rectify the heart valve defect termed the `blue baby syndrome*'; significance of pulse count; percussion and duscultation techniques.
The positive pressure ventilation, alph-methyldops, cage bell valve and cycloserine are just some of the medical techniques and therapies now considered beneficial to humanity that were almost discarded due to their failure during trials using lower animals.
How many procedures and substances that could have proved useful to humankind have been cast aside due to the misleading data attained as a result of animal testing?
`I cannot think of a single major breakthrough that was produced as a result of an animal experiment. I wonder how many more million animals have to be sacrificed before we abandon the useless and barbaric practice of animal experimentation.' - Dr Vernon Coleman, Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.
* Two animal researchers, Blalock and Taussig were credited with the discovery but their method failed when applied to humans and had to be replaced with British surgeon R.C. Brock's technique.
WARFARE & ANIMAL TESTING
`A day will come when the world will look upon today's vivisection in the name of science the way we look today upon witch hunts in the name of religion.' - Henry J. Bigelow formerly Professor of Physiology Harvard University.
Animals are not only used as flesh and blood tools in the field of medical research. Sentient creatures are also utilized for the purpose of developing more effective weapons and methods in which to kill men, women and children. Billions of dollars are spent each year to test the effects of nuclear warfare and radiation on animals.
In the United Kingdom alone 155,758 animals including dogs, monkeys and donkeys suffered and died in one year as a result of radiation experiments involving such destructive techniques as the bombardment of the animal with massive doses of radiation, and the blinding of subjects with laser beams.
The U.S. Army is one of the leading bankrollers of animal research into the genetics of infectious diseases and toxins (Source: U.S. Wall Street Journal). In 1986 U.S. $42 million dollars was spent by the Army's Medical Research Development Command to fund biotechnology projects. In the late 1980's the army began testing Strategic Defence Initiative weapons on a variety of animals including rhesus monkeys. This $1.5 million dollar project use animals to test particle beams, high energy lasers and microwave radiation.
Animals are also used to test conventional weaponry. This research may involve the animal being shot with standard, rubber or plastic bullets; infected with chemical or biological agents; shot through the head with a ball bearing or being subjected to riot control and nerve gases.
`Monkeys were injected with a drug to test its effectiveness as a protective agent against poisoning with the nerve gas Soman. During the seven days following exposure to the nerve gas many of the monkeys died, after suffering from muscle weakness, difficulty in breathing, tremors and violent convulsions. Some of the monkeys attempted to crawl across the cage floor but often collapsed. A number remained for some time in a moribund state.' Journal of Pharmacology 1979.
`Everything we did was useless'. Dr Donald Barnes, one-time American defence laboratory scientist.
How can governments justify the wastage of huge sums of public money on the development of more effectual ways of killing our fellow human beings and, in the process, torturing many defenceless animals, when the money would be better put to use feeding the starving and financing self-help programmes for the poverty-stricken*.
* Three week's global spending on arms would pay for primary health care for every child in the developing world. This would include access to safe water. One-half percent of the world's military expenditure for one year would pay for the farm equipment needed to increase food production and approach self-sufficiency in food-deficient, low-income countries.' - `One World or...None' - Australian Council for Overseas Aid.
`Vivisection corrupts the character, because it teaches you to attach no importance to the pain you inflict.' - Dr Abel Desjardins, former President of the French Society of Surgeons.
Not only do animals have to endure the pain and suffering of medical and military research, they are also subjected to agonizing, inevitably fatal tests used to determine the toxicity levels of household, agricultural and industrial substances.
Every day people use products such as cosmetics, cleaning agents, fertilizers, pesticides and other household substances, most brands of which have been tested on animals, causing millions of creatures pain and distress, and ultimately death. One type of experiment known as the LD-50 test involves the forcefeeding of animals with large amounts of these substances, a procedure designed to induce death in fifty percent of subjects, leaving many to die from ruptured or blocked intestines. Other tests necessitate the immobilization of animals, enabling researchers to force the subjects to breathe in large amounts of noxious gases and sprays in order to determine the lethal dosage.
Skin irritancy tests are also performed in which a large patch on the animal's body is scraped leaving a raw area of irritated skin. Chemicals are then applied to this chaffed section resulting in severe chemical burns, sores and fevers.
Another common experiment is the eye irritancy or Draize test which is completed on a large number of animals in which test organisms (usually rabbits) are restrained in stocks, thus making it possible for the researcher to apply concentrated amounts of test substances to the subject's eyes without risk of the animal defending itself or removing the offending compounds. This test causes the animals to suffer excruciating agony and frequently results in the destruction of the eyeballs and surrounding tissues.
A large number of safety-conscious companies have chosen more humane ways of proving that their ingredients and products are of the highest possible standard. These companies have been listed below.
When choosing products beware of the many companies which claim not to test on animals but who continue to send their ingredients or products to independent laboratories that carry out these painful experiments. Other companies conduct all animal testing in developing countries which have lax animal welfare laws, then make the fraudulent claim that no animal testing took place in the development of a product. Even if packaging indicates that a company does not test on animals, unless the brand name appears on this list check first with an informed animal welfare agency before purchasing their products. Your consumer dollar can made a real difference in the fight against cruelty.