~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- The next time you walk the aisles of your neighborhood drugstore take a look at the obscene number of brands for cosmetics, cleaning chemicals, and other items - all unrelated to saving human lives.
- Those beautifully packaged products are on sale because of the torture of literally millions of animals at testing labs, including dogs, monkeys, pigs, rodents, and other sentient, intelligent, sensitive animals.
- The Canadian CTV investigative program W5 just exposed a hidden video taken by a member of LCA - Last Chance for Animals - showing evidence of cruel and often sadistic torture of puppies, pigs and monkeys at the ITR LAB in Montreal.
- That lab is not the only one to use those procedures, of course. Labs like ITR engage in such cruel practices all across the country, and they do it with impunity because the law allows them to. Sadism is an extra, and it also goes unpunished.
- There is no government oversight of their facilities. What goes on in those labs, stays in those labs - unless someone with a hidden camera records those crimes, as was the case of one employee secretly hired by Last Chance for Animals - LCA to infiltrate that lab.
- As you watch this video you will realize that these animals must certainly go mad. They are wired to socialize, to play, to bond and to love other animals and humans.
- As test animals they never get a chance. They are isolated in metal cages, then tied up, restrained, and tortured day after day until their bodies are so ruined that they must be killed. Monkeys live up to 30 years. All other animals don't last more than a few months or a year.
- One cannot even imagine the amount of physical and mental pain they are forced to endure in their lives - all so that the consumers of those products can have shinier hair or a nicer complexion, and the companies selling them can make great profits.
- Canada has the LOWEST standards for the protection of animals in the western world.
Beagle puppies on the way to be processed for torture for the rest of their lives
CHANGE.ORG AND LCA: For four months in 2016, a Last Chance for Animals (LCA) investigator worked at International Toxicology Research Canada (ITR), located in Baie d’Urfe, Quebec (a suburb of Montreal), and documented numerous violations of provincial regulations covering the humane treatment of animals.
One of these victims was Grace, a young macaque monkey who turned in endless circles in her cage and had patches of fur missing from her skin, both signs of severe stress caused by confinement and a lack of any stimulation or socialization with other animals.
When LCA’s investigator pointed these symptoms out to an ITR employee responsible for the animal’s’ daily care, they were instructed not to record Grace’s condition, blatantly disregarding guidelines for the daily assessment of animals in laboratories, which require the measuring of behavioral well-being indicators.
Grace was treated as nothing more than another piece of lab equipment -- but she isn’t. She is a young animal who will be kept alive for years, maybe even decades, her body used in study after study as she suffers the painful effects of the toxins that she is forced to consume, and the isolation, fear, and constant stress that life in a laboratory will mean for her. No animal deserves this treatment. Sadly, Grace was just one of many victims at ITR.
LCA’s investigation also reveals:
- Animals thrown, slammed, suspended by their ears or limbs, and struck with such force that the impact can be heard on the investigator’s recording;
- Open wounds and swollen infections left untreated or inadequately treated;
- Animals subjected to painful and distressing procedures in full view of other animals;
- Beagles and macaques denied any chance of socialization with humans or other animals, and further denied any opportunity to exercise, in some instances for the duration of a nine-month study (at the end of which the animals were killed);
- Macaques denied access to sufficient drinking water;
- Technicians instructed not to take note of hair loss in macaques, despite the hair loss resulting from repetitive behaviors developed through the stress of confinement, and despite guidelines requiring that behavioral well-being indicators be measured;
- Inadequate housing where animals were confined without appropriate bedding or a dry, flat area to rest; where animals were exposed to constant loud noises and harmful levels of gasses due to the build-up of urine and feces behind their cages; and where animals risked being caught in the cages’ wire grilling;
- Beagles unable to ever fully turn around because they were constantly tethered with a catheter inserted between their shoulder blades;
- An anecdotal instance of a macaque left unsupervised while restrained in an inhalation device and subsequently suffocating to death.
The boldness with which many of the instances of abuse took place––often in full view of supervisors and, in the case of beagles in an inhalation study, in a room with a surveillance camera––suggests that technicians were confident they would not be reprimanded for their behavior.
ITR supervisors made no moves to prevent further abuse or to correct systematic neglect of the animals.
Continue reading this article, watch HIDDEN CAMERA VIDEO - and read article by Doctors Against Animal Experimentation explaining why it is not necessary
VIDEO - Last Chance for Animals - LCA - Investigation Reveals Cruelty at ITR Toxicology Research Lab!
Dogs, macaques, and pigs are all social animals, and depriving them of the chance to interact with humans or with members of their species, especially when none of the tests LCA witnessed called for the animals to be isolated for extended periods of time, is inexcusable
VIDEO - Last Chance for Animals - LCA - Investigation Reveals Cruelty at ITR Toxicology Research Lab!
Possibly the most intrinsic abuse with lab animals occurs merely in the way they are housed for most of their lives.
Animals in all of the studies documented by LCA were housed singly in barren wire cages, without opportunities for exercise or socialization. This social deprivation was exacerbated by the animals’ ability to see distressful procedures carried out on the others in the room.
Dogs, macaques, and pigs are all social animals, and depriving them of the chance to interact with humans or with members of their species, especially when none of the tests LCA witnessed called for the animals to be isolated for extended periods of time, is inexcusable
Macaques are highly social animals and live in extended family groups in the wild. Their suffering from isolation and use in painful experiments has been documented to show that 10-14% of individually housed monkeys mutilate themselves.
All the animals documented by LCA’s investigator were killed at the end of the studies they were used in, except the macaques. This species is commonly subjected to multiple studies over the course of their lives, which can be as long as thirty years.
Researchers are required to justify their use of animals in medical studies, with the goal of minimizing animal suffering. However, during our investigation, LCA documented a shocking violation of this principle.
In one instance, a dermal study designed to test a gel or ingredient intended to be applied topically to human skin involved rubbing a substance on the skin of mini pigs to test how the pigs’ skin would react.
When it became apparent that the substance was causing a severe degree of burning and irritation to the animals, technicians asked for the study to be stopped and the veterinarian and management agreed. However, the study sponsor was unwilling to stop the tests and instead instructed management to change the parameters of the study and to force feed the substance to the pigs.
Multiple animals were put through the distress of having a tube forced down their throats, and a foreign substance injected into their stomachs for a study that could not possibly produce any relevant or usable results.
The disturbing callousness of ITR management in allowing this treatment to occur violates the most basic ethical standards to which medical researchers are expected and required to adhere.
Footage obtained by CTV’s W5 appears to show mistreatment of dogs, pigs and monkeys used for testing. ITR Laboratories Canada disputes the claims, which are being investigated by the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
LCA has filed official complaints with Le ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation (MAPAQ), Le ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP), Ministère de l'Énergie et des Ressources naturelles (MERN).
These ministries are responsible for enforcing violations of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act (CQLR c. B-3.1), the Regulation Respecting theSafety and Welfare of Cats and Dogs (CQLR P-42, r.10.1), the Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife (CQLR c. C-61.1) and the Regulations Respecting Wildlife in Captivity (CQLR C-61.1, r. 5).
Provincial animal welfare laws do not exempt lab animals from provisions protecting animals from neglect and the types of abuse witnessed by our investigator.
The treatment documented at ITR shows a blatant disregard for the well-being of the animals in the care of the facility, and we are calling for charges to be laid against ITR’s management.
Expert Statements:
“After viewing this video, it is my professional assessment that the monkey wearing the red collar is of extreme concern; her situation must be addressed to alleviate her suffering. I also believe that many of the other monkeys are at risk of developing behavioral pathologies and suffering from the techniques used at this facility.”
“I believe that significant changes must be made by this facility in order to protect the animals’ physical and psychological well-being.”
Margaret Whittaker
Animal Behavior Consultant
Behavioral Advisor to the Old World Monkey Advisory Group of the AZA
“As highly social animals that live in large multi-male/multi-female groups in the wild, housing animals in a lab in the conditions listed above is inherently cruel. The effects of these conditions have caused the animals to exhibit abnormal behavior such as stereotypies, and extreme body hair removal. No social animal should be subjected to such living conditions. Psychological and social behavior indicated monkeys suffering.”
Dr. Jessica Ganas
Dr. Ganas has over twenty years experience working with primates in both a lab and wild setting. She received her PhD from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology where she studied wild mountain gorillas in Uganda for her dissertation.
Additionally, she has worked at three different captive and semi-wild primate research centers in the United States, primarily studying the social behavior of rhesus macaque monkeys.
In recent decades, scientific advancements have made many medical tests involving animals obsolete. All stakeholders should be working tirelessly to move away from using animals wherever alternatives exist; many tests commonly performed on animals can already be replaced. The scientific community has a moral obligation to end its reliance on animal models when more effective, efficient, and ethical methods of testing exist.
These abuses often happened in full view of supervisors, who made no effort to prevent further abuse or to correct systematic neglect of the animals.
LCA has submitted evidence in official complaints to Le ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation (MAPAQ), Le ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP), Ministère de l'Énergie et des Ressources naturelles (MERN) and is demanding enforcement for:
Demand justice for Grace and for all of the animals documented during LCA’s investigation. Sign to urge authorities to prosecute ITR and all individuals responsible for this horrific abuse!
Help stop the cruelty!
Read more about animal welfare violations at ITR here
Sources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CTV IW5 REPORTS:
Undercover investigation reveals what goes on inside Montreal animal research lab
By Kevin Newman of the CTV program W5
A national council responsible for monitoring animal welfare in research laboratories is investigating hidden camera footage obtained by W5 that appears to show mistreatment of dogs, pigs and monkeys used for testing at a Montreal-based facility.
Portions of the footage, which was shot by the Los Angeles-based animal rights group, Last Chance for Animals, that embedded a technician at ITR Laboratories Canada for four months, were shown to the Executive Director of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), Louise Desjardins.
She wouldn’t comment directly on what she had seen but told W5 that the association was in discussions with ITR about the footage. “I do not want to pre-empt or preclude the work of the panel,” she told W5 in an interview. “I really think that they need the time to do that work and gather all the facts.”
The video shows dogs aggressively thrown into cages, pigs restrained as they squeal, and technicians slamming animals onto stainless steel operating tables. It was filmed by a lab technician who was also an undercover agent for the animal rights group.
“Dogs (were) howling, crying all day long,” recalled the investigator, who asked not to be identified so she could conduct other undercover operations. “Up and down the halls you’d go, and that’s all you would hear is the dogs howling and crying.”
Last Chance for Animals’ undercover footage provides what is believed to be the first inside look at a Canadian testing facility and focuses attention on an industry, largely unregulated, that make animals sick so humans won’t be. The public rarely gets to see what the animals endure. While animal testing is legal, it is nevertheless very upsetting to watch.
Hours of video have also been filed with the Quebec government, along with 17 pages of an official complaint alleging abuse and inhumane practices at the Montreal lab.
ITR Laboratories Canada disputes the claim. “ITR operates in compliance with industry standards and federal, and provincial guidelines for animal care in a laboratory testing environment,” the company wrote in a statement to W5. “We take our responsibility to treat the animals in our care with the utmost respect very seriously.”
Every year in Canada, an estimated three and a half million animals are used by science, some of them exposed to experimental drugs, household products, and even cosmetics to test their tolerance to them.
The vast majority of the animals are mice, fish and birds, but 12,000 dogs and 5,000 monkeys are also involved in more advanced testing. The animals are bred for the purpose, sold to the labs, and live very short and often painful lives.
“There are certain cases that we documented that certainly rise to the level of abuse,” said Adam Wilson, who leads investigations for Last Chance for Animals.
Specifically, Wilson cites video that appears to show a technician striking a pair of beagles 16 times because they wouldn’t look forward in preparation for exposure to chemicals through a mask.
Industry guidelines are supposed to prevent harsh treatment of animals in science. They clearly state only the minimal force necessary should be employed against lab animals.
W5 also offered to screen the video for ITR Laboratories Canada. The company’s Senior Vice President, Ginette Bain, did not accept W5’s repeated offers to watch it. She said she will rely on the CCAC panel’s findings on whether there are any concerns.
“ITR has zero tolerance for the mistreatment of any animals under our care and maintains procedures to ensure staff may report and discuss concerns openly,” the company wrote in a statement.
Ginette Bain, senior vice-president of ITR Canada, said the company will "take the measures necessary," but she is "convinced" that animals have not been mistreated at the lab. (Courtesy of W5)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/undercover-investigation-reveals-what-goes-on-inside-montreal-animal-research-lab-1.3320123
LAST CHANCE FOR ANIMALS - LCA - WEBSITE
Their YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LAST+CHANCE+FOR+ANIMALS+
RELATED
WOMAN ON TRIAL FOR GIVING WATER TO PIGS ON THEIR WAY TO SLAUGHTERHOUSE
- CANADA has the most inhumane standards for livestock transportation in the western world
- Pigs, cattle and other animals are LAWFULLY transported for several days in extreme heat or cold and without rest, water, or food
READ MORE and watch VIDEOS
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2016/08/woman-on-trial-for-giving-water-to-pigs.html
- Torture of kittens carried out at ten prestigious British universities
READ MORE
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/06/kittens-skulls-cracked-open-electrodes.html
WHY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY
The following article is from
Why animal experiments are not necessary
Scientists, politicians and citizens are now increasingly recognising that animal experiments don’t fulfil what they promise, and that their results are not directly applicable to humans.
One study conducted by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer came to the conclusion that »one would be better off tossing a coin than relying on animal experiments to answer the question of carcinogenic substances. Only 5 - 25% of the substances harmful to humans also have adverse effects on the experimental animals. Tossing a coin delivers better results«. (1)
The numerous pharmaceutical drugs that were considered safe based on animal experiments, but caused serious or even lethal adverse effects in humans, are proof that the results of animal experiments cannot be transferred to humans with the necessary reliability. Lipobay®, Vioxx®, Trasylol®, Acomplia® and TGN1412 are just the tip of the iceberg. In Germany alone, as many as 58 000 deaths are estimated to be the result of drug side effects. (2)
On the other hand, no one knows how many beneficial pharmaceutical drugs are never released because they are prematurely abandoned on the basis of misleading animal experiments. Many drugs that are highly beneficial nowadays, such as aspirin, ibuprofen, insulin, penicillin or phenobarbital, would not be available if one had relied on animal testing in earlier days, because these substances induce grave damage in certain animal species due to differing metabolic processes. They would have failed outright if subjected to the present-day procedures applied in the development of active ingredients.
Tens of thousands of animals must die for each product. In most cases the products tested do not even advance medical science. On the contrary, in Germany approximately 2 500 new applications for pharmaceutical drug approval are filed each year, of which there is only one real innovation every two years. (3) Everything else either already exists or is simply unnecessary. For example, the company Bayer redefined the completely normal condition of elderly men as a »testosterone deficiency syndrome«, in order to create a new market for hormone drugs. There are some 60 000 drugs available on the German market. Many of them are identical and are only marketed under different names. According to the WHO only 325 medicines are actually essential. (4)
Animal experiments contribute nothing to the development of new therapies. The pharmaceuticals industry conducts them only to hedge their liability in case something goes wrong with one of their products.
The artificially induced symptoms have nothing in common with the human disorders they are supposed to simulate. Important aspects of the origins of the disorders, such as diet, lifestyle habits, drug consumption, harmful environmental influences, stress, and psychological and social factors, are not taken into consideration. The results of studies using animals are therefore misleading and irrelevant.
In fact, research based on animal experimentation repeatedly fails all along the line. 92% of potential pharmaceutical drugs that are shown by animal testing to be effective and safe do not pass clinical trials (5), either because of insufficient effectiveness or undesired side effects. Of the 8% of substances that are approved, half are later taken off the market because grave, often even lethal side effects in humans become evident. (6)
For instance, the »invention« of the cancer mouse was believed to be the long-sought key to combating malignant tumours. In the mid eighties, researchers at the Harvard University succeeded in inserting a human cancer gene into the genome of mice, so that the rodents prematurely developed tumours. This genetically engineered mouse was even the first mammal to be patented, in the USA in 1988 and in Europe in 1992. Since then, tens of thousands of cancer mice have been »cured«, but all the treatments that were »successful« in rodents failed in humans.
Animal experimental research regularly announces breakthroughs with all kinds of disorders. Animal testing supposedly proved this or the other method of treatment to be successful in combating Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, atherosclerosis, etc.. However, the hopes of the afflicted patients are almost always disappointed, and the celebrated miracle cures are never heard of again. Humans just aren’t mice.
Scientific studies are increasingly casting doubt on the benefits of animal experiments. They prove that the results of animal tests often do not correlate to the insights gained from humans, and that animal experiments are often irrelevant to the clinical application for humans.
In an English meta-study the results of different treatment methods on experimental animals and patients based on the relevant scientific publications were compared. Only three of the six disorders investigated delivered correlations, the remaining half did not. (7)
In a further comparative study a British research team determined that the results of studies conducted on both animals and humans often differ quite considerably. According to the study, the inexact results of animal experiments can endanger patients and are also a waste of research funding. (8)
In a German study, 51 applications for animal experiments that were approved in Bavaria were analysed with regard to their clinical implementation. The research team discovered that even ten years later not one single project had been demonstrably implemented in human medicine. (9)
Animal experimentation is not only useless, it is even harmful. It implies security that does not exist, and the false results it delivers only impede medical progress.
Sophisticated computer models are capable of delivering information on structure, effect and toxicity of substances, such as new drugs or chemicals. Microchips combine computer and in-vitro methods; in a system of minute ducts and chambers, microchips are colonised with human cells from different organs. Thus it is possible to test the effect of an experimental substance on the individual organs, as well as how it is metabolised and whether any toxic waste products are formed. (11)
Examples of animal experiments approved and conducted in Germany:
Thus a researcher’s quality is not measured by the number of people he or she has helped, but rather by the amount of scientific publication. True to the motto »Publish or perish«, it is only possible to attain profile in the world of science by means of a long list of publications in renowned scientific journals, the amount of research funding available depending on the list of publications.
This funding is invested in new animal experiments, which again result in a new publication. This absurd system is self-sustaining and devours incredible amounts of research funding, third-party funds or scholarships, without being of any benefit to sick people.
A further reason why animal testing is continued in some areas is the lack of financial support for animal-free research, as well as the protracted procedures for approving the implementation of in-vitro methods.
Finally, animal experiments serve the pharmaceutical industry as a means of hedging their liability. If something goes wrong with a drug, the manufacturer can point to the animal testing conducted without the side effects arising. Animal experiments are also very popular in the pharmaceutical industry, because they can be used to prove anything one wants. There is bound to be a species and a test setup that will deliver the desired results.
(2) J.U. Schnurrer, J.C. Frölich: Zur Häufigkeit und Vermeidbarkeit von tödlichen unerwünschten Arzneimittelwirkungen. Der Internist 2003; 44, 889-895
(3) Peter Schönhöfer in the TV programme »Fakt«, 20.8.2001
(4) World Health Organisation, press release 4.9.2002 (WHO releases first global reference guide on safe and effective use of essential medicines), http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/who67/en/index.html
(5) U.S. Food and Drug Administration Report: Innovation or Stagnation - Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, March 2004, p.8; www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.pdf
(6) U.S. General Accounting Office. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985. Publication GAO/PEMD-90-15, Washington, D.C., 1990
(7) Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P: Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2007; 334 (7586); 197
(8) Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I: Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004; 328; 514-517
(9) Lindl T, Völkl M, Kolar R: Tierversuche in der biomedizinischen Forschung. Altex 2005; 22 (3); 143-151
(10) Taylor K., Gordon N., Langley G., Higgins W. (2008) Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(3):327-342
(11) Technology Review July 2004, p. 45-48
(12) Wolfgang Härtig at al: Hibernation model of tau phosphorylation in hamsters: selective vulnerability of cholinergic basal forebrain neurons – implications for Alzheimer’s disease. European Journal of Neuroscience 2007: 25, 69-80
(13) Tina Sicilia et al.: Novel Lycopene metabolites are detectable in plasma of preruminant calves after Lycopene supplementation. Journal of Nutrition 2005: 135, 2616-2621
(14) Ulf-Rüdiger Heinrich et al.: Endothelial nitric ocide synthase upregulation in the guinea pig organ of Corti after acute noise trauma. Brain Research 2005: 1074, 85-96
(15) U.Trotzke et al.: The influence of fasting on blood and plasma composition of herring gulls (Larus argentatus). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 1999: 72(4), 426-437
(16) Michael Schmäh, Eberhard Horn: Neurophysiological long-term recordings in space: experiments Scorpi and Scorpi-T. Gravitational and space biology bulletin: Publication of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology 2005: 18 (2), 95-96
Animal experiments are dangerous
It is often claimed that animal testing is indispensable, because a »complete organism« is supposedly required for the development of pharmaceutical drugs. Animals may well be complete organisms, but they are the wrong ones. Animals and humans differ considerably with regard to anatomy, physiology and metabolism. Even animals of different species can react quite differently to chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs. It is not possible to predict whether a human will react identically or differently based on the results of experiments conducted on animals.One study conducted by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer came to the conclusion that »one would be better off tossing a coin than relying on animal experiments to answer the question of carcinogenic substances. Only 5 - 25% of the substances harmful to humans also have adverse effects on the experimental animals. Tossing a coin delivers better results«. (1)
The numerous pharmaceutical drugs that were considered safe based on animal experiments, but caused serious or even lethal adverse effects in humans, are proof that the results of animal experiments cannot be transferred to humans with the necessary reliability. Lipobay®, Vioxx®, Trasylol®, Acomplia® and TGN1412 are just the tip of the iceberg. In Germany alone, as many as 58 000 deaths are estimated to be the result of drug side effects. (2)
On the other hand, no one knows how many beneficial pharmaceutical drugs are never released because they are prematurely abandoned on the basis of misleading animal experiments. Many drugs that are highly beneficial nowadays, such as aspirin, ibuprofen, insulin, penicillin or phenobarbital, would not be available if one had relied on animal testing in earlier days, because these substances induce grave damage in certain animal species due to differing metabolic processes. They would have failed outright if subjected to the present-day procedures applied in the development of active ingredients.
Tens of thousands of animals must die for each product. In most cases the products tested do not even advance medical science. On the contrary, in Germany approximately 2 500 new applications for pharmaceutical drug approval are filed each year, of which there is only one real innovation every two years. (3) Everything else either already exists or is simply unnecessary. For example, the company Bayer redefined the completely normal condition of elderly men as a »testosterone deficiency syndrome«, in order to create a new market for hormone drugs. There are some 60 000 drugs available on the German market. Many of them are identical and are only marketed under different names. According to the WHO only 325 medicines are actually essential. (4)
Animal experiments contribute nothing to the development of new therapies. The pharmaceuticals industry conducts them only to hedge their liability in case something goes wrong with one of their products.
Animal experiments are bad science
Since most human diseases do not occur in animals, their symptoms are simulated using »model organisms«. For instance, in order to induce Parkinson’s disease, monkeys, rats or mice are injected with a neurotoxin that destroys brain cells. Cancer is induced in mice by means of genetic engineering or injecting cancer cells. Cerebral strokes are caused in mice by inserting a thread into a cerebral artery. Diabetes in rats is caused by injecting a toxin that destroys the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. Heart attacks are simulated in dogs by constricting a coronary artery with a noose.The artificially induced symptoms have nothing in common with the human disorders they are supposed to simulate. Important aspects of the origins of the disorders, such as diet, lifestyle habits, drug consumption, harmful environmental influences, stress, and psychological and social factors, are not taken into consideration. The results of studies using animals are therefore misleading and irrelevant.
In fact, research based on animal experimentation repeatedly fails all along the line. 92% of potential pharmaceutical drugs that are shown by animal testing to be effective and safe do not pass clinical trials (5), either because of insufficient effectiveness or undesired side effects. Of the 8% of substances that are approved, half are later taken off the market because grave, often even lethal side effects in humans become evident. (6)
For instance, the »invention« of the cancer mouse was believed to be the long-sought key to combating malignant tumours. In the mid eighties, researchers at the Harvard University succeeded in inserting a human cancer gene into the genome of mice, so that the rodents prematurely developed tumours. This genetically engineered mouse was even the first mammal to be patented, in the USA in 1988 and in Europe in 1992. Since then, tens of thousands of cancer mice have been »cured«, but all the treatments that were »successful« in rodents failed in humans.
Animal experimental research regularly announces breakthroughs with all kinds of disorders. Animal testing supposedly proved this or the other method of treatment to be successful in combating Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, atherosclerosis, etc.. However, the hopes of the afflicted patients are almost always disappointed, and the celebrated miracle cures are never heard of again. Humans just aren’t mice.
Scientific studies are increasingly casting doubt on the benefits of animal experiments. They prove that the results of animal tests often do not correlate to the insights gained from humans, and that animal experiments are often irrelevant to the clinical application for humans.
In an English meta-study the results of different treatment methods on experimental animals and patients based on the relevant scientific publications were compared. Only three of the six disorders investigated delivered correlations, the remaining half did not. (7)
In a further comparative study a British research team determined that the results of studies conducted on both animals and humans often differ quite considerably. According to the study, the inexact results of animal experiments can endanger patients and are also a waste of research funding. (8)
In a German study, 51 applications for animal experiments that were approved in Bavaria were analysed with regard to their clinical implementation. The research team discovered that even ten years later not one single project had been demonstrably implemented in human medicine. (9)
Animal experimentation is not only useless, it is even harmful. It implies security that does not exist, and the false results it delivers only impede medical progress.
Animal experiments are immoral
Regardless of the numerous scientific reasons, there are also ethical reasons to reject animal experiments. Each year at least 115 million animals die in the laboratories of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, in universities and other research institutes. (10) Animal experiments degrade animals as »model organisms« to disposable measuring instruments. Yet animals are sentient fellow creatures capable of suffering. Animal experimentation is not compatible with ethically justifiable medicine and science.Research methods without animal testing are good science
Putting an end to animal experiments does not mean the end of medical research. On the contrary – switching to studies on humans, for instance in the areas of epidemiology, clinical research, occupational safety and health, and social medicine would lead to real medical progress. Testing methods without the use of animals, using human cells and tissues combined with special computer programs, deliver exact and conclusive results, as opposed to animal experiments.Sophisticated computer models are capable of delivering information on structure, effect and toxicity of substances, such as new drugs or chemicals. Microchips combine computer and in-vitro methods; in a system of minute ducts and chambers, microchips are colonised with human cells from different organs. Thus it is possible to test the effect of an experimental substance on the individual organs, as well as how it is metabolised and whether any toxic waste products are formed. (11)
Animal experiments that do not need to be replaced
Those who believe that animal experiments are conducted in order to develop new therapies for sick people are profoundly mistaken. Many animal experiments conducted as pure research don’t even pretend to benefit medicine.Examples of animal experiments approved and conducted in Germany:
- At the University of Leipzig it was discovered that hibernation protects hamsters' neural tissue and can thus for instance prevent Alzheimer’s disease. (12)
- In the Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food in Karlsruhe, carotinoids were mixed into calves’ milk replacer, in order to find out why tomatoes and melons are so beneficial to humans’ health. (13)
- In order to investigate the consequences of acute acoustic shock on the inner ear of guinea pigs, the animals were subjected to the sound of rifle shots (156 +/- 4 dB), then killed. (14)
- At the Institute of Avian Research in Wilhelmshaven, 22 herring gulls captured on a German North Sea island were not fed for six days. The aim was to find out how long gulls can starve. (15)
- In Ulm, a research team has been investigating the effects of gravity on the development and bio-rhythms of different animal species for years. For instance, an apparatus was assembled, with which measurements can be conducted on living scorpions over a period of several months. The animal is affixed to and immobilised on a plate. Electrodes inserted into eyes, leg muscles, brain and body continuously measure nerve currents. (16)
Why are animal experiments still conducted?
Clinging to animal experiments does not have scientific reasons, but rather is based largely on tradition. More than 150 years ago, the French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813 – 1878) elevated animal experiments to the touchstone of all medical and scientific insight. Bernard's doctrine lives on in a contemporary scientific paradigm that only accepts results that are analytically explicable, as well as measurable and reproducible. Within the framework of this scientific system, sicknesses become technical defects and animals become measuring instruments.Thus a researcher’s quality is not measured by the number of people he or she has helped, but rather by the amount of scientific publication. True to the motto »Publish or perish«, it is only possible to attain profile in the world of science by means of a long list of publications in renowned scientific journals, the amount of research funding available depending on the list of publications.
This funding is invested in new animal experiments, which again result in a new publication. This absurd system is self-sustaining and devours incredible amounts of research funding, third-party funds or scholarships, without being of any benefit to sick people.
A further reason why animal testing is continued in some areas is the lack of financial support for animal-free research, as well as the protracted procedures for approving the implementation of in-vitro methods.
Finally, animal experiments serve the pharmaceutical industry as a means of hedging their liability. If something goes wrong with a drug, the manufacturer can point to the animal testing conducted without the side effects arising. Animal experiments are also very popular in the pharmaceutical industry, because they can be used to prove anything one wants. There is bound to be a species and a test setup that will deliver the desired results.
Conclusion
Animal experimentation not only stands for cruel and therefore unethical methods, but also unscientific methods that have no right to a place in modern 21st century medicine and science.References
(1) Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift 1983: 125 (27), 8(2) J.U. Schnurrer, J.C. Frölich: Zur Häufigkeit und Vermeidbarkeit von tödlichen unerwünschten Arzneimittelwirkungen. Der Internist 2003; 44, 889-895
(3) Peter Schönhöfer in the TV programme »Fakt«, 20.8.2001
(4) World Health Organisation, press release 4.9.2002 (WHO releases first global reference guide on safe and effective use of essential medicines), http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/who67/en/index.html
(5) U.S. Food and Drug Administration Report: Innovation or Stagnation - Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products, March 2004, p.8; www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.pdf
(6) U.S. General Accounting Office. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985. Publication GAO/PEMD-90-15, Washington, D.C., 1990
(7) Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P: Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2007; 334 (7586); 197
(8) Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I: Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004; 328; 514-517
(9) Lindl T, Völkl M, Kolar R: Tierversuche in der biomedizinischen Forschung. Altex 2005; 22 (3); 143-151
(10) Taylor K., Gordon N., Langley G., Higgins W. (2008) Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA), 36(3):327-342
(11) Technology Review July 2004, p. 45-48
(12) Wolfgang Härtig at al: Hibernation model of tau phosphorylation in hamsters: selective vulnerability of cholinergic basal forebrain neurons – implications for Alzheimer’s disease. European Journal of Neuroscience 2007: 25, 69-80
(13) Tina Sicilia et al.: Novel Lycopene metabolites are detectable in plasma of preruminant calves after Lycopene supplementation. Journal of Nutrition 2005: 135, 2616-2621
(14) Ulf-Rüdiger Heinrich et al.: Endothelial nitric ocide synthase upregulation in the guinea pig organ of Corti after acute noise trauma. Brain Research 2005: 1074, 85-96
(15) U.Trotzke et al.: The influence of fasting on blood and plasma composition of herring gulls (Larus argentatus). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 1999: 72(4), 426-437
(16) Michael Schmäh, Eberhard Horn: Neurophysiological long-term recordings in space: experiments Scorpi and Scorpi-T. Gravitational and space biology bulletin: Publication of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology 2005: 18 (2), 95-96
Link to this article (in English)
https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/agt-en/index.php/resources/general/46-why-animal-experiments-are-not-necessary
www.doctors-against-animal-experiments.org
ANIMAL-FREE RESEARCHThe difference between animals and men is that big, that results of animal experiments can not reliably be transferred to human beings. In research based on animal experiments it is assumed that the complex illness- and healing processes of man could be imitated by so called »animal models«, which means animals who have been made ill artificially. Important factors of the origin of illness like nutrition, habits of living, drugs like cigarettes and alcohol, environmental influences, stress and psychic or social factors are not taken into account in this way of research.
Due to this methodically wrong starting-point, animal experiments were not beneficial for the treatment of the so called civilization-illness of man, including cardio-vascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic arthritis and allergies.
Also animal experiments are not able to protect the consumer from damages caused by chemicals and drugs. Today a lot of so called in vitro methods are available, test methods which are carried out in a test-tube and thus do not use living animals. These innovative methods of research deliver - in contrast to the animal experiment - reliable, easily reproducible results, and besides these tests are more sensitive, cheaper and faster than tests on the living animal.
Examples for methods of research without animal experiments:
Cells and cultured cells
- The EPISKIN ®- test with artificial, human skin makes it possible to assess how the skin reacts to corrosive effects and chemicals on the skin. This examination is normally carried out on rabbits or guineapigs.
- Adding carcinogenical substances to normal cells leads an abnormal growth of these cells. This is how substances that can cause cancer can be detected in the transformation test.
- Monoclonal antibodies are substances of the immune system which are used in many fields of research and diagnostic. Instead of the extremely cruel production in the peritoneal cavity of mice, biological reactors (like the glass mouse or techno mouse) can be used for production.
- With the PyroCheck test fever triggering substances (pyrogenes) can be tracked down in serums and infusion solutions by using human white blood cells. So far, the test was carried out on rabbits.
- The human cornea with all its layers can be copied three-dimensional in the test tube e.g. to test ointments (»artificial cornea »).
- With nerve cell cultures you can examine the release of neuro-transmitters (carrier substances) as well as their pharmacological effect. By this, drugs in the field of Parkinson´s disease, epilepsy and pain research can be tested.
- Cell cultures of arteries which occur as debris in operations can be used in the arteriosclerosis research. This way, causes and treatment of vascular diseases can be examined.
- Cultured heart muscle cells keep their contraction ability, even in a test-tube. With their help, physiological interrelations and the effect of heart drugs can be tested.
Incubated eggs
Instead of the cruel Draize test, where the substances are dripped into rabbit´s eyes to check the irritant effect of chemicals and cosmetic products, hen´s eggs can be used. With the HET-CAM-TEST, the test substance is dripped onto the membrane of the fine blood vessels of an incubated egg and the reaction can be watched.Bacteria
With the Ames test using Salmonella bacteria, researchers can detect genetically harmful features of chemicals.Computer systems
Screening with computer models is used to selsct and discard potential ineffective or toxic substances. By this method, animal experiments are not involved in finding new drugs.Relevant findings within the field of the human-medical research can be won directly on human patients with modern, computer based imaging (tomography) showing organs in three-dimensional pictures. Imaging areas of the human brain during a certain brain performances is a useful research method in brain research.
Human based research
A lot of medical disciplines do not use animals and give - contrary to animal research - really relevant results for human beings, including:Epidemiology, preventive treatment or precautionary medicine, clinical and rehabilitation research, psychotherapy, occupational and social medicine as well as natural healing. In toxicology (poison tests) it is more sensible, too, to use data of human poisoning cases instead of poisoning animals.
Only documentation and analysis of real poisoning cases of human beings must be used for risk assessment. For example, symptoms like headache, dizziness or impaired concentration can be caused by substances, symptoms which can never be assessed in animal experiments.
Why are animal experiments still carried out?
Considering that animal experiments are useless and the in vitro research is developing rapidly, we have to ask ourselves why many animals still have to suffer and die in experiments. There are several reasons:- In science, the outdated animal experiment has been established as a method of choice.
- An enormous amount of research funds is poured into the animal experiment research.
- In the world of science, researcher can only create a distinctive personal image for themselves by a long list of publication in peer review journals.
- Animal experiments are common when pursuing a university career e.g. writing one's doctoral thesis.
- Animal experiments satisfy the scientific curiosity, the urge to discover the nature and their phenomena into greatest detail.
- Animal experiments have an alibi function for the pharmaceutical industry, as they can protect them from claims for compensation.
- The financial support of research methods without the animal experiment is totally inadequate.
- A method without animal experiment is only officially recognized, if their results concur with the ones of the corresponding animal experiment (so called validation). The animal experiment itself though has never been validated. It only has been and still is simply accepted by the scientists, although the results of the animal experiment are inaccurate, not reliably reproducible and can not be transferred on the human situation. The quality of new, more sensible test systems is therefore compared with a bad, outdated method. So really useful in vitro systems have only got a small chance of ever being recognized officially.
https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/agt-en/index.php/resources-animals
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for visiting my blog. Your comments are always appreciated, but please do not include links.