Ban Animal Testing.

by Ray Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:08

but so many are repetitions of the first question -
"(1)They say that animal testing is essential for testing drugs intended for human use. But if animal testing is so reliable why are all new drugs tested on humans in subsequent clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance?"

I suppose the answer is that drugs are tested on animals because if they have serious side-effects, you want them to show up in animals rather than humans. Sure, there are some things that will only show up in tests on humans. But there are plenty of problems that will affect humans and (other) animals, and the aim is to detect them with animal testing rather than human testing.

When a drug moves to the testing-on-humans stage you see the same kind of filter effect. The drug is tested on a small number of humans, then a wider number, and then approved for widespread use, but still tracked for effects.

by Mise Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:33

Ciaran, you've gone to great lengths to tell us all why we shouldn't. So now tell us what we should, or does your imagination stretch that far? If we can't test on animals (who don't really contribute to society the way we do) what can we do?

by Mártan - Sinn Féin Thu Nov 11, 2004 15:23

I'm a UCD graduate with a BSc (hons) Pharmacology.

Here are answers to some of your questions, Ciarán;

1. The aim of animal testing is to determine whether or not a drug theorised to work will in fact do so in mammals or animals with as similar a physiology to humans as possible.

Phase 1 clinical trials (carried out on human subjects often terminally ill) are preceeded by animal trials (pre-clinical).

Preclinical trials involve determining whether or not a given drug is carcinogenic, teratogenic (can cause deformities in the developing foetus), which (if any) major systems are damaged by the drug e.g renal (kidney), hepatic (liver), cardiac (heart) etc.
The drug will not proceed to clinical trials if they have been seen cause cancer in mice.

Preclinical trials also determine efficacy and the NOAEL value (No observable adverse effect level). A drug will not proceed to clinical trials if it's therapeutic range is too narrow. This is determined in preclincal trials.

3. Drugs that "pass" preclinical trial are never deemed to be "safe". the object of preclinical trials to to see whether clinical trials are justified.

4, 5, 6, 7. Many adverse reactions are only observable after an often lengthy preiod of time has elapsed. Ideally, animal trials should be longer and include more animals.
Also, many clinical trials begin before the preclinical trials end. This is to speed up the drug discovery process as it is an expensive, lengthy one. A company will invest $billions into drug discovery and will require a return as quickly as possible.

Many drugs are indeed removed from the market after varying periods of time but far more drugs cease development in the clinical trials stage (and more again in the preclinical trials).

8. No drug may be dispensed to humans unless trials have been carried out on these drugs, regardless of whether they are "copycat" versions or not.

9. Disease prevention is a matter for government and policy-makers. And a significant amount of drugs manufactured are for just that e.g insulin to prevent diabetes-related illness.

10. Companies in the third world should be allowed to manufacture generic versions of drugs available in the west. Those generic drugs though are the products of animal trials.
Also, there will always be a desire to discover new and better drugs (which will necessitate the sacrifice of many animals).

My father died of lung cancer over a year ago. He was on carboplatin and taxol, two common first-line carcinogenics. They cause nausea, vomitting, allopecia (hair loss) because they target all rapidly dividing cells.

In my lectures we were discussing brand new strategies (now in Phase 2 clinical trials) that can actually target individual cancer cells, causing less discomfort to the patient. Their development is very, very expensive and could be themselves potentially carcinogenic if not develpoed right.
Hoopefully the will be on the market soon.

That's what it's about, you fucking moron. You are the stupidest person I have ever come across on Indeymedia. You're probably a Trot or something.

by Ray McInerney Thu Nov 11, 2004 16:59 o86 0638611

Yes Mártan drugs may be withdrawn, but only after substantial harm has been done. For example, benoxaprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent (NSAID) was introduced and heavily marketed in 1982, but then withdrawn after cases of fatal liver toxicity were reported in Great Britain. Zomepirac sodium was also ´aggressively marketed as a safe analgesic´, but withdrawn after a year and numerous reports of fatal anaphylaxis17. The cardiac drugs flecainide and encainide, heavily promoted to control abnormal heart rhythms, were then withdrawn years later after scientific studies showed they caused fatal arrythmias and that those treated with them were two-and-one-half times as likely to die as were those taking a placebo.

by Ray Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:10

We should stp testing on animals, because that would make drugs safer? We should stop developing new drugs? We should all stick to Chinese medicines, homeopathic solutions, and other placebos, because if they don't do anything, they can't do anything bad?

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:12

So we meet again, Mr. Lone Gunman. Or should I say Sean McGovern? Been a while since I last came across you. Good to know you're still around. Still up to your old tricks???

by Nosey Parker Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:16

Now that is interesting. Tell us more about Sean

by Michael Hennigan Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:24

Mártan's forensic filleting of Ciaran's case is a welcome antidote - and the last line produced a laugh!

Would Ciaran refuse drugs where he could not get a guarantee that they had not been tested on animals?

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:31

Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to animal experimentation are reluctant to admit that those methods were useless, much less dangerous. They often revel in the glory of discovery, never pausing to consider the human patients who are deprived of useful remedies while they squander money on knowledge for knowledge's sake. Animal experiments fuel the scientific papers they are obliged to write, and these result in promotion. Animal experimentation works for them, if not for humankind. Imagine the guilt these PhDs would feel if they were to face the true consequences of their work, if only in terms of its costly wastefulness and its effect on patient victims.
Animal experimentation continues because it is highly profitable. The more animal experiments the researcher does, the more articles he or she publishes. The more articles published, the more grant money received. The more grant money, the more money the university or research facility receives. The more money the university or research facility receives, the less liable big business is and the more products big business can sell. The more big business sells, the more money for advertising and hence the more compliant is the media.
But the animal testing machine, now large and in perpetual motion, will be difficult to stop.

* A 25 year cancer study was done on while mice. A cure was found for cancer in while mice, but none for humans.
* Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.
* At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
* When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.
* Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
* According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
* 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
* Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.
* Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.
* Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
* When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
* At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
* Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.
* 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
* One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
* Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.
* The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.
* We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.
* Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.
* Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.
* Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.
* If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
* It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.
* Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.
* As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

by bernie - AFAR Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:32 berniew at esatclear dot ie

well, MISE!
can we start by hearing what contribution YOU as a human make to society?

by Ray Thu Nov 11, 2004 17:53

If you replied to the points they made, instead of cutting and pasting the contents of another leaflet.

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Thu Nov 11, 2004 19:31

To reply to Michael Hennigan question....Would I refuse drugs where I could not get a guarantee that they had not been tested on animals?
I ended up in hospital for nearly a week with a suspected heart attack, which was caused by medication I was taking. It never said anything about chest pains on the information leaflet that came with the medication. I now use alternative medications that I know haven't been tested on animals. The chest pains haven't returned.

by Liz Thu Nov 11, 2004 20:42

All of these arguments are as old as the hills. I don't agree with testing drugs on animals, and that's all there is to it. There are other ways of developing and testing drugs, and it would be a good idea to develop these methods, instead of struggling on with the same tired methods that aren't at the end of the day very effective considering what has died or suffered to perpetuate them.

So much for that. What amazes me though is the outrage that such an opinion produces, usually from bio-chemists or bio-technologists. It seems to me that some scientists are very stuck in their ways and unwilling to make the break into greater things. It's an example of what Thomas Kuhn called 'normal science'; where people beaver away, day after day, producing, well, nothing really; and the real scientific work is done by those willing to take risks and use their imaginations.

It takes a bit of imagination to empathise with an animal that is suffering. It takes a bit of imagination to try to figure out how we can make things better. To try to ask new questions and not get angry when somebody else asks them.

by SGT Freedom Fri Nov 12, 2004 17:08

ethics and profit. Remember theBodyShop where everyone has fallen for the dupe of no animal tested products.
Did you know that theBodyshop CANNOT sell any products in the USA unless it is tested to FDA standards on animals???
Yet the Bodyshop is huge in the USA!!!
So obvisouly the Bodyshop has forgotten it's oh so holy ethics for money as well.Screw the animals lets make money.
Trouble with alternative remedies is they might work well with some folk and do nothing for others,where normal medicine might work fine.
Wonder how long it will be anyway before someone suggests teating on humans?Look at it like this;It is your body,why shouldnt you be able to make a few bobs sellling it to science to test drugs on?

by slugfood Sun Nov 14, 2004 16:47 slugwoman at eircom dot net

Ciaran (et al) is right.
It is pathetic that so many people contributing here on the matter are pro-vivisection.
Torturing hundreds of thousands of other animals, for some spurious benefit to ourselves, is indefencable.
Anyone who thinks animals deserve to be "tested" on, shold offer themselves up first, for trials. If it's really that important that all these new drugs be tested, then why don't they do it themselves? (well we all know the answer)
Not only the sick treatment of these animals wrong, but often so is the manufacture of the products (pollution), not to mention the many side effects that humans suffer when the drugs go wrong.
Look forward to seeing ye in the queue for the lab......

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Thu Jan 19, 2006 04:09

You people are cruel. Just because animals can't fight back or defend themselves like us, doesn't mean it is okay to test on them. Animals are more innocent than humans, humans are cold and greedy. When humans kill, it is usually painfully and tortures the victim, but when animals kill, it is usually quick. Besides, animals kill for food and protection, many human killers kill because they feel like it. Maybe you other commenters against the author should have things tested on you like animals and you not be able to communicate with the people torturing you, then how would you feel huh?
I stand by Ciaran Long. And you two first commenters know nothing, you have no understanding of pain or torture, as long as you're not going through something like that. You are selfish and greedy and don't deserve the torture of animals to help keep you safe from torture like them. Obviously and unfortunately their torture is in vain. Besides, there are other alternatives to animal testing. Don't you know anything at all?

by pat c Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:39

i am in broad agreement with you, but what about diabetics? type 1 diabetes reuires insulin, this is manufactured through the use of animal tissue. even the new alternatives (not that widely available) use materials that have been genetically engineered using animals in at least the early stages.

are you saying that diabetics should die? do you want to have the use of animals in the production of insulin banned?

by rob Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:48

"not to mention the many side effects that humans suffer when the drugs go wrong."

Surely a reason to test on animals is to try an ensure that such side effects dont happen...

by Student Thu Feb 23, 2006 19:11

Just want to say thanks alot to all of you people who wrote articles as to why animal testing should NOT be banned, i am doeing a debate in school tomorrow and you have relly helped me.
Keep up the good work!.

by ramos28 Wed May 31, 2006 14:04

The people that are pro vivisection are victims of propaganda and brainwashed.Would you even consider looking into anti vivisection ?or are you just callous morons as i presume you are,have you seen read about the disgusting cruel and pointless experiments that are conducted behind closed doors away from all scrutiny,no ,i think you people have your head in the sand.Is a rat a human ,a dog?there are many doctors and real scientists against vivisection www.pcrm.org You pro people piss me off

by Big Mac Wed May 31, 2006 15:38

Why not go the whole hog and protest about Butchers, supermarkets, corner shops, restaurants, chippys who sell burgers etc, etc. sure they all sell products made from poor unfortunate animals don't they? How many animal rights protesters are vegetarians?

by Jerry Cornelius Wed May 31, 2006 16:06

Our much beloved Stalinist Butcher, Noel Murphy now with the IWU used to be Secretary of the Cork Operative Butchers Society. He use to get hate mail all the time from veggies and animal rights heads.

Every year around Xmastime Noel would get a pig, name it after one of corks Merchant Princes eg Clayton, Peter, Hugh and bring the pig from pub to pub selling raffle tickets (Noel sold the tickets, the pig didn't). Naturally the pig was first prize and Noel would butcher the pig as part of the package. All funds raised went to a good cause.

by DennisL Wed Jun 07, 2006 15:16

Hi,
Look the arguments that there are other methods is a valid one...in as far as there are other methods, like mathematical modelling of biochemical systems, and testing on human tissue. But it is not a valid argument that any of these methods are comprehensive replacements for animal testing.
Already it is necessary that scientists use these methods prior to animal testing, in order to minimise some of the side effects, but the fact remains that unless the drugs are tested in a living biochemical system (IMPOSSIBLE to model accurately due to the complexity of the systems), we don't know what kind of effects that they will have.
I'm an electronics engineer, and I am going to draw an analogy to an electronics system.You start by testing an characterising individual bits...sensors, electronic conversion elements etc... Once that is finished you combine them into subsystems (can we read the sensors automatically and put the data in memory), and then we combine the subsystems into the complete system. At each stage NEW problems occur due to interaction effects, product defects, incompatible formats etc... and this is what happens in biological systems also.
So yes we can test on human tissue, but how will we know what effects it will have on the system? How will we know about possible birth defects? How can we tell if the absorption of the drug is done at the correct stages. Some people are putting too much weight into the feelings of rats and mice, putting their suffering ahead of that of humans (who have created culture, art, explored beyond this world, who love and hate, and can change the universe if they try hard enough).

On "Knowledge for Knowledges Sake":
This is being presented as a bad thing. Research into different aspects of obscure subjects might seem like a waste of time to people who think that they are the moral guardians of humanity (and apparantly their self-righteousness is all they think about) but that kind of research has led to us understanding the world. It seems to me that there are thought-stunted sects of humanity out there who want to put their heads in the sand and live "happy" like primitive mankind, who want to turn their back on learning and "knowledge for knowledges sake". There is no point in knowing WHY the sky is blue after all.

by three faced Sat Nov 11, 2006 00:13

Just wondering if Ciaran got one of these Western 'Lifestyle' Illnesses, say depression or something would he take drugs or seek an alternative method?

by becca Fri Nov 24, 2006 19:03 nothing_better_to_do at hotmail dot co dot uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Opponents_o...sting READ THE CONTROVERSY PART AND TELL ME HOW THIS HELPS IF THIS DOESN'T MAKE YUO CRY THEN YOU ARE COLD HEARTED

please add me if your against animal testing