 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / May 2006It's time to test the testers
It's time to test the testers Over-reliance on the accuracy of animal testing is dangerously misleading and puts human life at risk, writes Kathy Archibald Friday May 5, 2006 In her article People power, Sophie Petit-Zeman falsely equates the whole of medical research with animal experimentation and misrepresents animal testing opponents as "anti-science". As a geneticist who has worked in pharmaceutical development, I share the conviction that medical research is vital. I have medicines and surgery to thank for saving my life many times but I am grateful to the doctors and patients who went before me: not to animals. All of our current drugs and treatments were discovered through astute observation of patients, pioneering self-experimentation, ingenuity and advances in technology. Aspirin, the world's most common medicine, owes nothing to animals: nor do antibiotics, anaesthetics, Aids drugs, antidepressants - the list goes on. How is the public supposed to judge whether animal research is essential when all they hear are unsubstantiated claims like: "Some of the major advances in the last century would have been impossible without animal research". The Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled that this assertion, made by the Association of Medical Research Charities, was misleading and should not be repeated, yet it is the very mantra of pro-vivisectionists. This issue must be judged on facts. Take drug testing: the evidence to date shows that animal tests predict fewer side-effects than a coin toss. This is why nine out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials; injuring and sometimes killing the volunteers. The recent drug trial fiasco in London provides stark new evidence of the futility of testing new drugs for safety in animals: the six unfortunate men were reassured that TGN1412 was safe because it was safe in monkeys. Further examples abound of drug catastrophes where many people have been killed despite extensive "proof" from animal tests that the drug was safe. Arthritis drug Vioxx, withdrawn from the global market in 2004, appeared safe and even beneficial to the heart in animal tests, but caused as many as 320,000 heart attacks and strokes in people - as many as 140,000 of them fatal. The associate safety director of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) described it as the "single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of the world." Side effects of prescription medicines - all tested for safety on animals before they can be administered to humans - are now the fourth biggest killer in the western world. Animal tests are failing to protect us and the government is failing to learn from disaster after disaster. Maybe this time, because false reassurances of safety in monkeys were so clearly responsible for the TGN1412 calamity, the call for scrutiny of animal tests will be heeded at last. Even the Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science admits that "uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans." Animal research misleads in other ways too; hampering our understanding of human disease. Former director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Richard Klausner lamented: "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." The NCI also believes we have lost cures for cancer because they were ineffective in mice. Cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic and benzene are all safe to ingest, according to animal studies. Conversely, of 20 compounds known not to cause cancer in humans, 19 do cause cancer in rodents. Seven hundred drugs to treat strokes have been found safe and effective in animal studies. Of the 150 tried so far on patients in clinical trials, not a single one is safe and effective. Thirty Aids vaccines have likewise failed in clinical trials after successful studies in primates. There is no getting away from the fact that people have to be the ultimate guinea pigs for testing new treatments. Clearly, the health and safety of research volunteers and patients should be paramount and the best pre-clinical safeguards should be in place to protect them. New drugs go through three basic testing phases: in vitro (test-tube) and in silico (computer) modelling; animal testing; and, finally, human trials. Before a drug is tested in humans, there should be persuasive evidence that it is safe and effective. No method - animal, human or test-tube, can predict the reactions of every patient with 100% accuracy. Reactions differ between sexes, ages and ethnic groups, which is why clinical trials should be more representative of the general population. We are all different, but not as different from each other as we are from animals. Non-animal methods are not completely fail-safe, but do offer more security. Currently, 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials. This means that volunteers in the trials suffer unexpected side effects, which can be serious and even fatal. According to Drug Discovery World in 2002, this is largely because "the animal data were poor predictors of efficacy in the human subject." It has been known among scientists and the pharmaceutical industry for decades that animal testing is scientifically unreliable. As long ago as 1962 The Lancet commented: "We must face the fact that the most careful tests of a new drug's effects on animals may tell us little of its effect in humans." In 1964 James Gallagher, the medical director of Lederle Laboratories, admitted: "Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless." So, pharmaceutical companies conduct animal tests simply to satisfy government regulators. Crucially, animal data provides liability protection when drugs kill or injure people - and has allowed pharmaceutical companies to avoid the expense of conducting clinical trials as extensively as they should. In 1984, Professors Lawrence, McLean and Weatherall observed: "The methods of assessing toxicity in animals are largely empirical and unvalidated ... It is urgently necessary to know whether the tests as in fact conducted have sufficient predictive value to be justifiable, or whether they are a colossal waste of resources to no good purpose..." Since then, evidence has mounted that animal tests are inadequate for the task they are supposed to perform but - incredibly - this has never been systematically investigated. In light of recent drug disasters, the only responsible course of action is to evaluate animal testing scientifically, in an independent and transparent manner. · Kathy Archibald is the director of Europeans for Medical Progress, a patient safety group that is calling for an evaluation of animal testing. Add your support here. http://www.curedisease.net/edmform.shtml http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,1767632,00.html Special report: The business of research http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/0,,481464,00.html >writes Kathy Archibald [...] >How is the public supposed to judge whether animal research >is essential when all they hear are unsubstantiated claims like: >"Some of the major advances in the last century would have >been impossible without animal research". _________________________________________________________ If scientists could replace animal research and testing with methods which did not need to use animals then they would. There are several reasons for this: * Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research. Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative techniques that would allow us to stop using animals. * Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds, which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test their effectiveness and toxicity. * The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of British research establishments are a contributory factor in making animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds to other areas of research. [...] http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ [...] From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction. Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition, toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild animals. In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were all developed to help human couples, but today they also are regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species. [...] http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ _________________________________________________________ WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. http://www.ampef.org/research.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > >writes Kathy Archibald > [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with methods which did not need to use animals then > they would. It takes the investment of a great deal of time and money to develop validate a method of testing drugs that does not use animals. As long as the regulators are happy to accept animal data, pharmaceutical companies have a strong financial incentive to stick with the status quo. <snip> > _________________________________________________________ > WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: We have no way of knowing what alternatives to animal research would have emerged if we had looked for them, and what we would have been able to achieve with them. pearl proved to you people that Clinical trials are always the bottom line. They will always be the only alternative to the insanity of vivisection, which has done more harm than good for all of the TRILLIONS of $ spent on it; consider all of the faulty results it has produced and HUMAN deaths it has caused. >We have no way of knowing what alternatives to animal research would >have emerged if we had looked for them Yes we do, because people have been looking for them too. Pro-vivisection propaganda. > WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: > Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and > adults this year. 'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated. The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the Nobel prize for this discovery. Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human tissue, if not more so. Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying: 'Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models [of polio] in monkeys'. This fact is confirmed by the following comment: 'Only after researchers ceased relying on the misleading animal studies, and heeded evidence uncovered by human clinical virological studies, could they identify the pathogenesis of polio' [Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996), p.127]. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6 See also; http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html > Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't > be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 'In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics. Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through appropriate diet. That the highest incidence of the disease is in the United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits they developed diabetic problems. One of the well-worn favourites of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients. Yet more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900 - twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin. .......' http://www.health.org.nz/diab.html > 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or > kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood > pressure. As with diabetes, ... '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html "Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. .."... C. David Coats (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm) ... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million. > Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who > now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. '1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer- supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1] [1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html 'There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection. "Vaccinations and sulfa drugs have been recognised as being directly responsible for the production of leukemia in humans." (Dr B. Duperrat, of the Sant-Louis Hospital in Paris, writing in the French medical journal Presse Medicale, March 12 1955.) "Already published reports, as well as our own observations indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces manifestations of leukemia. In children and adults observed in the clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been followed by violent local and general reactions and by leukemia." (Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslave Halileokowski of the Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland wrote as reported in Lancet, May 6 1967.) "The vaccine modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it towards alkaline and oxidised terrain - the terrain of cancer. The fact can no longer be denied." (The January 1958 issue of another French medical journal, Revue De Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique.) "In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of leukemia have increased more than six times between 1920 and 1952... According to Wilkinson, sulphanomides (antibiotics) stand convicted as one of the contributing factors, even when fairly low dosages were employed. In cases reported in detail, the tragic path from a granulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and acute monolytic leukemia is revealed in black and white." (The July 1957 issue of Medical World, article by Freda Lucas.) "Leukemia has been dramatically increasing, especially among children, ever since the various modern 'therapies' have been inflicted upon a frightened, artfully misinformed public. Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukemia in contrast to what animal experiments had shown." "The characteristic effects in leukemia were detected solely as a result of clinical observation. The various leukemias in the mouse and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of urethane, and the remarkable effect in the human might have eluded discovery if attention had been directed to the animal alone. That illustrates the hazards of such work." (Prof. Alexander Haddow, British Medical Journal, December 2 1950, page 1272.) "The argument from man is so much more convincing than the argument from mice - which indeed, may be completely misleading, as in the case of urethane, which has some inhibitory action on human tumours, but a marked, though temporary one on chronic human leukemias." (Dr C.G. Learoyd, Surgeon, Medical World, August 1954, page 172.) "The drugs Prednisone and Vincristine are often hailed as 'curing' childhood leukemia. Both drugs were rejected by the US National Cancer Institute as 'useless' on the basis of animal tests. Prednisone was developed as a result of clinical observation of the effects of adrenal extract. Vincristine is an alkaloid of 'Vincra Rosea', a type of periwinkle plant, and extracts of periwinkle were used in the Roman Empire to 'dry tumours' (Pliny). They were eventually brought to clinical trials. The children cured of leukemia owe their lives to clinical observations and trials - and not to the animal 'model'." (Brandon Reines, Cancer Research on Animals: Impact and Alternatives.) ..' http://www.health.org.nz/chleu.html > More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye > this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. 'On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using human eye tissue in cataract research. He, and fellow researchers at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance that experiments on animals do not". "The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit." (Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science - a choice to make.) In the Journal of Organotherapy, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January-February 1932, page 23, it is reported that a well-known operation for cataract devised by Philip Syng Physick, was the result of clinical research alone. In Medical Press, January 27 1954, page 74, in criticism of an article which drew attention to reports of successful treatment of cataract through experiments on rats, Posner warns that there are dangerous hazards, even resulting in blindness should the method be applied to human beings. ..' http://www.health.org.nz/catrct.html > Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or > spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. 'Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical fraud of vivisection. We are told that animals must be used in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working. ..' http://www.health.org.nz/spcord.html > The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip > replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be > confined to wheelchairs. 'John Charnley developed an arthoplasty of the hip in 1946, but a preliminary trial led him to believe that it was unsatisfactory(1). In 1949, Charnley received a Home Office licence to experiment on animals, and it is said that he grafted bones in goats but did not record the results. Likewise, he did not publish ANY papers on any animal experiments he may have conducted(1). Charnley wrote "A few observations on the human are often of more value than a large series of experiments on animals..."The `crucial` experiment was an isolated observation"(2). The `crucial` experiment had been performed on a human patient(3). Later, Charnley measured co-efficiency of the fracture of articular cartilage. This could be done quite simply in an engineering laboratory but it was not so easy in animal joints, since the cartilage could not be fashioned into a plane surface. Charnley checked the published papers and found two written in 1934 and 1936 by E S Jones, who had described his experiments on the knees of horses but Charnley believed that such experiments were open to various objections and decided to make measurements on a freshly amputated knee joint of a human patient(3). Thus, Charnley may have had a vivisector`s license and, possibly, did conduct some animal experiments - but he realized that the progress had to come from clinical work - which he did. ..' http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism7/surgerycontinued.htm > 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral > palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. 'Phototherapy has proven successful in humans and Gunn rats for the long-term management of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia. Exposure to high-intensity visible light induces catabolism of bilirubin to less toxic, diazonegative derivatives, which can be excreted in bile and urine.(6) This therapy was not derived from the Gunn rat model. In 1958, by measuring the effects of sunlight and artificial blue light on serum bilirubin concentrations in newborn infants, Cremer demonstrated that phototherapy had potential value in the prevention of hyperbilirubinemia.(40) Lucey et al. noted, "The decolorizing effect of sunlight and artificial light upon solutions of bilirubin has been known for many years. This observation prompted Cremer to first use phototherapy clinically"(41) in 1958. In 1968, Lucey et al. conducted the first controlled study of low-birthweight infants to test the effectiveness of phototherapy in the prophylaxis of hyperbilirubinemia. They found that, "...continuous phototherapy is effective in significantly modifying hyperbilirubinemia."(41) To date, the treatment of CJN syndrome "...usually requires exchange transfusions and phototherapy."(34) ..' http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_1_1989_suppliment/Model%2... > There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of > patients with end-stage renal disease. 'In Holland, Willem Kolff heard of cellophane in 1938 from Prof Brinkman, his biochemistry teacher at Groningen University. One he was aware of this, Kolff took 45cm of skin used to cover sausages, filled the skin with blood and added 100mg of urea. He sealed both ends of the sausage skin, fixed it to a board and rocked it in saline solution in a bath. After 30 minutes, all of the urea had passed from the blood to the rinsing solution. This led to Kolff`s idea of an artificial kidney. He purchased further supplies of the sausage skin and began calculating the requirements for the design. Through trial and error, Kolff built four machines, but none were considered reliable enough for clinical use. In 1942, Kolff and Berk constructed the fifth prototype - but it remained unused for some time. In 1943, the first patient was referred to Kolff as doctors at the time thought that the machine would, at least, do no harm - but it did. The first 15 patients treated with the new artificial kidney all died.. It was not until 1945 that Kolff successfully treated Sofia Schafstedt, a 67 year old woman. Kolff went on to send eight machines to different parts of the Netherlands. After 1946, one machine was sent to London, another to New York, and a third to Montreal, Canada(1). ref 1.Keck,PS. Meserko,JJ. Proc Am Acad of Cardiovascular Perfusion. vol 6. 1985 http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism6/abdominalsurg... > Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the > development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced > unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. '(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'. ..' http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html > Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many > others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. "Official statistics from many countries indicate that smallpox (and other communicable diseases) were declining before vaccination programs were enforced. This may be attributed to the sanitation reforms and nutritional teachings instituted around the mid-1800's. For example, water supplies were protected from contamination, streets and stables were cleaned, sewage was removed, and food was delivered while still fresh. However, once smallpox vaccinations became mandatory, deaths from the disease steadily increased. In fact, records in several countries show that nearly every contagious disease-plague, cholera, measles, scarlet fever, dysentery, whooping cough-except smallpox (kept alive by mandatory shots), declined in number and severity on its own." [Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 12-20](p. 45) Before England passed a compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest death rate for anytwo year period was only 2,000 cases, even during the most severe epidemics. [Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 13]"(Jenner himself admitted that smallpox was relatively unknown before he began his vaccinations. In fact, there were only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England at that time.) After more than fifteen years of mandatory vaccinations, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from the disease. In Germany, over 124,000 people died of smallpox during the same epidemic. All had been vaccinated. In Japan, nearly 29,000 people died in just seven years under a stringent compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination program. Compare these devastating figures to Australia, where the government terminated compulsory vaccinations when two children died from their smallpox shots. As a result, smallpox virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years)." (p. 46) "Every examination of the facts indicates that the smallpox vaccine was not only ineffective but dangerous. Undoctored hospital records consistently show that about 90 percent of all smallpox cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated. " . . . There is a direct relationship between the percentage of babies vaccinated and the number of smallpox deaths: the higher the percentage, the greater the fatalities. In other words, deaths from smallpox tumbled only after people refused the shots [see Figure 1 below]."(p. 46) ... http://gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Does_America_Really_Need.htm > Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died > from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and > more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. At least that's applicable to the target species. .. http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/errors.html > http://www.ampef.org/research.htm 'Better Science IV. TESTING ALTERNATIVES http://www.neavs.org/betterscience/Alt-4-.htm > Pro-vivisection propaganda. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the > Nobel prize for this discovery. Recently, FBR referred these oft-repeated and dubious assertions to an unimpeachable authority: the two living Nobel laureates who conducted the research that led to the development of the polio vaccine, Dr. Frederick Robbins, Dean Emeritus of the School of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University; and Dr. Thomas Weller, Professor of Tropical Public Health, Emeritus, at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Robbins responded: “The statement that animal experimentation delayed the ‘fight against polio’ is totally wrong. Indeed, all we learned about the disease came from studies with animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of information. It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that the portal of entry for the virus was the gastro-intestinal tract. “Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was only one type (2). In our early tissue culture experiments, it was necessary to inoculate animals to demonstrate virus in the cultures. Far from misleading us, animals led us to the truth and made possible the eventual solution." http://www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm > > Pro-vivisection propaganda. > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > http://www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm An excerpt from Aping Science - A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Committee on Animal Models in Biomedical Research - 1995. p 21-22.] Animal research advocates repeatedly cite the polio story as an example of animal experimentation's utility. (1, 2, 3) In truth, the principle monkey model of polio infection was fundamentally misleading, and, as a result, it misdirected preventive measures and delayed vaccine development. (4) As Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, explained in 1984, "the work on [polio] prevention was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." (5) ...... While clinical studies showed that polio virus infects gastrointestinal tissue, decades of monkey experimentation suggested only neural tissue involvement, and, as a result, vaccine researchers mistakenly believed that polio virus would only grow in neural tissue. Vaccine development was therefore delayed because it was thought that vaccines derived from neural tissue culture were too dangerous. In 1948, however, John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins, on the basis of human experimental data, grew polio virus on human intestinal tissue, which finally led to a safe vaccine. ...' http://www.curedisease.com/Faqspolio.html uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > "Prior to that time, the monkey was Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. Your an evil, lying propagandist; Dr. Robbins is a scientist. You are wrong. uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > "Prior to that time, the monkey was Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. You're an evil, lying propagandist; Dr. Robbins is a scientist. You are wrong. ignorant uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > ignorant uneducated whore lesley blabbered: > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > "Prior to that time, the monkey was Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. You're an evil, lying propagandist; Dr. Robbins is a scientist. You are wrong. "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html > Robbins knows "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm lesley the foot-rubbing, SCIENCE-ILLITERATE whore in Cork, Ireland blabbered: > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Prior to that time, the monkey was Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. Dr. Robbins IS a scientist; you're an evil, lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about science. "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html > > > Robbins knows > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Robbins knows - you don't. Dr. Robbins IS a scientist; "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm hand·i·cap (han'de-kap') .. tr.v., -capped, -cap·ping, -caps. .. 2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede. ..' http://www.answers.com/handicap impede verb 1. To interfere with the progress of: bog (down), encumber, hinder, hold back, obstruct. Idioms: get in the way of. http://www.answers.com/impede > you're an evil, > lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about > science. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Projection lesley the foot-rubbing, SCIENCE-ILLITERATE whore in Cork, Ireland blabbered: > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about > >science. > "Prior to that time, Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. Dr. Robbins IS a scientist; you're an evil, lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about science. > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "Prior to that time, Stop with the bullshit, lesley. The research on animals was SUCCESSFUL. The scientists who won a Nobel prize for discovering the path of infection categorically state that the research on animals was absolutely necessary. Stop the lying, lesley. If you think the research was *morally* wrong, then try to make that case. But stop with the IGNORANCE-based lies about the animal research leading to the polio vaccine being a "failure". It was not a failure; it was a spectacular success. It's really surprising that you keep trying to argue science in a forum oriented toward ethics. In the first place, ethics is a topic where uninformed, opinionated loudmouths like you traditionally can say whatever you like. In the second place, it is abundantly clear that you, lesley, DO NOT KNOW SCIENCE. There's a reason you're off in a wacky, new-age bullshit bit of narcissism like foot massage: you are fundamentally ANTI-science in your way of thinking. > > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > "Prior to that time, "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm hand·i·cap (han'de-kap') .. tr.v., -capped, -cap·ping, -caps. .. 2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede. ..' http://www.answers.com/handicap impede verb 1. To interfere with the progress of: bog (down), encumber, hinder, hold back, obstruct. Idioms: get in the way of. http://www.answers.com/impede > Stop with the bullshit, lesley. The research on animals was > SUCCESSFUL. The scientists who won a Nobel prize for discovering the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > wacky, new-age bullshit bit of narcissism like foot massage: you are > fundamentally ANTI-science in your way of thinking. YOU LIE COMPULSIVELY AND PERPETUALLY. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html Try spreading your legs instead, lesley - you're good at that. > > > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "Prior to that time, Robbins and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong." Robbins knows - you don't. Dr. Robbins IS a scientist; you're an evil, lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about science. > > Stop with the bullshit, lesley. The research on animals was > > SUCCESSFUL. The scientists who won a Nobel prize for discovering the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > YOU LIE COMPULSIVELY AND PERPETUALLY. No, lesley, but thanks for the shrill, hysterical confirmation that I'm right. You do this foot massage crap because your unfocused mind didn't permit you to master something that requires thinking. "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> 'The serial bully: .. is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication .. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm > > > > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Robbins wrote: "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm hand·i·cap (han'de-kap') .. tr.v., -capped, -cap·ping, -caps. .. 2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede. ..' http://www.answers.com/handicap impede verb 1. To interfere with the progress of: bog (down), encumber, hinder, hold back, obstruct. Idioms: get in the way of. http://www.answers.com/impede > and Weller refute your bullshit. Robbins explicitly says: "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm hand·i·cap (han'de-kap') .. tr.v., -capped, -cap·ping, -caps. .. 2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede. ..' http://www.answers.com/handicap impede verb 1. To interfere with the progress of: bog (down), encumber, hinder, hold back, obstruct. Idioms: get in the way of. http://www.answers.com/impede > "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against > polio' is totally wrong." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lying propagandist and foot-rubbing whore who knows nothing about > science. Projection. Robbins contradicts himself. You look really stupid. Try spreading your legs, lesley - you have lots of practice. > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > > 'The serial bully: Is a figment of your paranoid imagination. >>>>>"Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>"The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against >>polio' is totally wrong." That's what Robbins wrote. He refutes you, you foot-rubbing whore. He says you're full of sh.t. "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> '> Your insults only further damage your credibility ... Isn't that interesting?? The "people" who frequently claim intellectual, educational, and moral superiority, noBalls being the supreme example, not only can not engage in a polite, rational exchange, but frequently denigrate themselves further by spewing insults, vulgarity, lies, personal attacks, transparent propaganda, etc. And, they are so stupid as to not know that they have long-ago destroyed any credibility or self-respect by doing so. How idiotic is that? This behavior is quite typical of the alcoholic, who, having absolutely no self esteem, tries to pump up his own ego and delusions of self worth by lashing out at everyone around him. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html > >>Robbins > > > > wrote: "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm > >>"The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against > >>polio' is totally wrong." > > That's what Robbins wrote. He refutes you, you > foot-rubbing whore. He says you're full of sh.t. Projection, liar ball. He refutes himself, you idiot. "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available experimental animal, which seriously handicapped research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm ~ Having available only a three-legged horse seriously handicapped progress towards the finishing post. > "The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against > polio' is totally wrong." ~ The statement that a three-legged horse had delayed progress towards the finishing post is totally wrong. ... Start spreading your legs instead, lesley - it's already your profession. lesley the SCIENCE-ILLITERATE foot-masseuse/prostitute of Cork, Ireland lied: > "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> > > > Your insults only further damage your credibility ... > > Give it up, lesley. You are an illiterate. > Start spreading your legs instead, lesley - it's already your > profession. > > lesley the SCIENCE-ILLITERATE foot-masseuse/prostitute of Cork, Ireland > lied: You are the liar, ball, and a sick pervert who gets off posting imagined sexual acts, .. esp. the violent rape of young boys. G-d help your son, and wife. Are they still living with you? Am keeping an eye on the area you inhabit, Pasadena LA, ball. > > "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> > > > > > Your insults only further damage your credibility ... > > Give it up, lesley. You are an illiterate. Give it up, ball. You're an idiot. lesley the SCIENCE-ILLITERATE foot-masseuse/prostitute of Cork, Ireland lied: >>Start spreading your legs instead, lesley - it's already your >>profession. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are the liar, No, lesley, you lying whore. > G-d help God damn your lying, fornicating a.s to hell, you slimy c.nt. > Am keeping an eye on the area you inhabit, Pasadena LA, ball. <yawn> >>>"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> >>> >>>> Your insults only further damage your credibility ... >>> >>Give it up, lesley. You are an illiterate. > lesley the SCIENCE-ILLITERATE foot-masseuse/prostitute > of Cork, Ireland lied: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>> > >>Give it up, lesley. You are an illiterate. Dave wrote: "Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself." Goo responds: "No, not that odd, Fuckwit. It's all very reasonable, and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently. " > lesley the SCIENCE-ILLITERATE foot-masseuse/prostitute > of Cork, Ireland lied: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > God damn your lying, fornicating a.s to hell, you slimy > c.nt. Goo the cowardly little woman beater strikes again. You are s-o-o manly Goo. > > Am keeping an eye on the area you inhabit, Pasadena LA, ball. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>> > >>Give it up, lesley. You are an illiterate. Yeah, when all else fails Leefy starts the personal attacks and then denies it--"I don't." It's called doublethink and old habits. "A habit is harder to break than an addiction." (many sources) Ronnie (sector_four) remembers "Lesley" as an animal helper from 1998, a person of great knowledge and worthy of much praise. She does all the citing for us. Also, notice how 'dh' and Leefy agree on this topic and just about everything else. sector_four P.S. Vivisection is a huge growth industry which employs a lot of blue collar types who used to work in factories. That's why we are never gonna get rid of it---------- 'it's the money, stupid'. > Yeah, when all else fails Leefy starts the personal attacks > and then denies it--"I don't." It's called doublethink and old habits. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > She does all the citing for us. She has certainly done her share of the work around here........and that includes kickin' Leefy's (Goober's) a.s when needed. Which is all the time. Also, notice how 'dh' and Leefy > agree on this topic and just about everything else. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's why we are never gonna get rid of it---------- 'it's the money, > stupid'. > "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. ..." > www.fbresearch.org/education/MythPolio.htm Please read the above again for comprehension, it is say that having only the monkey as an experimental animal seriously handicapped the research on polio, not that the monkey did. Anytime a single animal model is all that is available will handicap medical research. Unfortunately, using whole animal models will never be completely replaced by tissue cultures and computers. As an example, the renin-angiotensin system that regulates blood volume and blood pressure requires the inputs of the kidneys, the lungs and the adrenal glands to elicit a response. There is no way to culture these three tissues in vitro and have the same response as would be produced in an animal model. It is simple to say that we don't need animals in biomedical research, it is unfortunately impossible to continue research without them. > hand·i·cap (han'de-kap') > .. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Projection The statement that animal experimentation delayed the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong. Indeed, all we learned about the disease came from studies with animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of information. It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that the portal of entry for the virus was the gastro-intestinal tract. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No one comes close to lying to oneself the way a vivisector can. 1. It was Swedes in 1912 using CLINICAL tests which proved the g/i tract was the ONLY port of entry. They were ignored in the U.S. 2. Monkey testers went right on trying to prove it was the NASAL PASSAGE. 3. 37 YEARS WERE WASTED by Salk, Sabin and many others, soaking up that $. 4.In 1949, they finally gave it up. 5. Sabin always insisted: "Salk didn't discover anything." Salk would counter:"Albert Sabin was out for me from the very beginning." Neither did a hell of a lot so they were both right. In 1992, the link between the origin of AIDS and bad polio vaccine (from monkey kidneys) was established and then by covered up by the FDA. That's right. Read it and weep!! Vivisection is both insidious and invidious, is 50% conscious GREED and 50% DOUBLETHINK.The greed is accounted for by the doublethink. Read "1984." Otherwise, you won't comprehend. It's by far the most accurate description of humanoid thinking. Leefy and dh will employ DOUBLETHINK in order to deny this stuff. Lil', fat Ronnie aka sector_four Ronald the Brain-Damaged Clown wrote: > The statement that animal experimentation delayed > the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong. Indeed, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1. It was Swedes in 1912 using CLINICAL tests which proved > the g/i tract was the ONLY port of entry. Citation? <chuckle> > They were ignored in the U.S. Doubtful. > In 1992, the link between the origin of AIDS and bad polio vaccine > (from monkey kidneys) > was established and then by covered up by the FDA. That's right. Read > it and weep!! Read it and laugh, you mean - it's utter bullshit. > [snip moldy fuckwit's repetitious bile] > Ronald the Brain-Damaged Clown wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Citation? <chuckle> That was actually prior to 1912.. 4. I. Wickman, Studien ziber Poliomyelitis acuta; zugleich em Beitrag zur Kennrnis der Myelitis acuta. Berlin, Karger, 1905. I. Wickman, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Heine-Medinschen Krankheit. Berlin, Karger, 1907 .... 'The reality is that the understanding of polio was hampered by animal experimenters. In 1910 it was thought that polio was contracted via the nose, a theory that was supported by experiments on rhesus monkeys by Flexner and Lewis. They identified the lymph channels, blood vessels and tiny nerves under the mucous covering the nose to be transmitting the virus.[1] Flexner then teamed up with Clark and experimented on monkeys during 1912. Exposing the polio virus to the nose of the monkey was found to lead to infection, which they interpreted to be confirmation.[2] This theory was dominant (although wrong) for many years, despite the fact that it contradicted the evidence from autopsies, which showed the virus in the human small intestine, suggesting a route of infection via the digestive tract.[3] The theory involving the digestive tract was established in the very early 1900s by Ivar Wickman who studied in detail two polio epidemics in Sweden. He found that polio affects throat, stomach, and intestines, and he suggested that the gastrointestinal system might be the initial site of infection.[4] The correct theory was resisted in the face of strong supporting evidence, because animal data did not agree. In 1938 when the theory was challenged, the real route of infection was identified. This route is via the mouth and digestive tract, as suggested by the clinical researchers.[5] The failings of the animal research were acknowledged in the meantime. In 1929, it was said "the virus of poliomyelitis has no affinity for others of the lower animals, with the possible exception of the rabbit...The disease, as described in the rabbit, does not resemble human or simian poliomyelitis, but takes the form of convulsive seizures rapidly leading to death".[6] Thus, even the best of the animal models was found to be very different. The role of animal experiments in delaying understanding is acknowledged by recognised authorities. Dr J. R. Paul's A History of Poliomyelitis summarised: "So the theoretical fundamentalists, like so many who have immuned themselves in the laboratories before and since, drifted further away from the human disease in their attempts to use experiments in the monkey for the interpretation of the disease in man".[7] Paul also stated that reliance on the monkey results meant: "The clock had been set back about twenty-five years in poliomyelitis research".[8] The discovery that those people who had been exposed to the virus were more resistant was made by studying humans. This was backed up by examinations which showed that those surviving and recovering from the illness held antibodies, which indicated prior infection. This indicated a possible line of research into a vaccine, which was successful.[9] Sabin, who eventually developed the polio vaccine, stated that: "It became necessary to extend the studies to human volunteers when it was found that poliovirus, which were devoid of paralytogenic activity in chimpanzees, multiplied poorly or not at all in the alimentary tract of monkeys; and that amounts of virus that multiplied poorly or not at all in the alimentary tract of chimpanzees multiplied very well in the intestinal tract of susceptible human volunteers".[10] Sabin himself later stated on oath to the US Congress that the polio vaccine had been delayed by decades due to misleading animal data. He testified that "...the work on prevention (of polio) was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."[11] ...' http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin13.html >>Ronald the Brain-Damaged Clown wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I. Wickman, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Heine-Medinschen > Krankheit. Berlin, Karger, 1907 .... That's barely readable German, you fuckig a.shole. You don't even know what it says. Robbins puts you in your place, dreamy slut - animals were indispensable. > The statement that animal experimentation delayed > the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong. Indeed, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Leefy and dh will employ DOUBLETHINK in order to deny this stuff. Spot on, and correct. > Lil', fat Ronnie aka sector_four >>The statement that animal experimentation delayed >> the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong. Indeed, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Spot on, and correct. Missed by miles, and entirely incorrect. This fuckwit doesn't have a citation for his "1912" bullshit, and the rest is evidence of advanced CJD - he's done for. > >>The statement that animal experimentation delayed > >> the 'fight against polio' is totally wrong. Indeed, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > This fuckwit doesn't have a citation for his "1912" He is entirely correct. 'As early as 1910, Flexner and Lewis (9) had cautiously suggested that poliovirus gained access to the central nervous system via the nasal mucosa, a hypothesis supported by experiments with monkeys performed by Flexner's group and by Leiner and von Wiesner: swabs containing poliovirus were introduced into the nose and rubbed vigorously over the upper nasal mucous membrane, with ensuing clinical poliomyelitis. Flexner's views on the strict neurotropism of poliovirus and on its entry into the body by the nasal route (see above) dominated poliovirology so that other experimental evidence was more or less neglected for about 25 years until the 1930s. In particular, the exciting results of a young Swedish team consisting of Carl Kling, Wilhelm Wernstedt, and Alfred Pettersson published in 1912 (11, 12) were disregarded: the authors had demonstrated poliovirus in fatal and nonfatal cases of poliomyelitis, not only as expected from the oropharynx and trachea but also from the small intestine. Certainly, one possible interpretation of the presence of virus in the intestines was that it had been swallowed. But the clue of poliovirus present in the intestines and its pathogenic significance was not seriously pursued. Revival of poliovirus infection as an intestinal disease came mainly from the work of Trask and Paul at Yale University (20) and the definite report by Albert Sabin and Robert Ward in 1941 (26) on the natural history of human poliomyelitis. By meticulous technique (the authors performed necropsies of fatal polio cases themselves), they proved that the virus is distributed predominantly in two systems: (i) certain regions of the nervous system and (ii) the alimentary tract. ..' http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=112492 > bullshit, and the rest is evidence of advanced CJD - > he's done for. Projection. >Pro-vivisection propaganda. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the >polio virus could be grown in human tissue. I'm quite confident much of the things they learned was the result of research done on animals. > It's time to test the testers > > Over-reliance on the accuracy of animal testing is dangerously > misleading and puts human life at risk, writes Kathy Archibald False. This malarkey has been demolished and dismissed hundreds of times. > How is the public supposed to judge whether animal research > is essential when all they hear are unsubstantiated claims like: > "Some of the major advances in the last century would have > been impossible without animal research". It is very difficult for members of the public to judge the efficiacy of animal experiments. I tend towards the assumption that medical researchers use animal models because they find them helpful but.... > The Advertising > Standards Authority recently ruled that this assertion, made > by the Association of Medical Research Charities, was > misleading and should not be repeated, This is a highly significant ruling. I tried to find it on the Advertising Standards Agency website but was unsuccesful. I don't suppose you would know where to find a copy of the ruling? > yet it is the very mantra of pro-vivisectionists. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.