Animal research - Leaked documents

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Wed May 11, 2005 17:38 pagan_animal_liberation_front at hotmail dot com

Common drugs 'cause 1,200 heart attack deaths a year'- English Independent Newspaper today
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
11 May 2005


Millions of patients who take drugs prescribed for ailments from sore throats to indigestion may risk a heart attack, researchers have warned.

The drugs, including antibiotics, indigestion remedies and treatments for mental illness, could cause up to 1,200 heart attack deaths a year in the UK and 15,000 in Europe and the US, the researchers said.

A study in the Netherlands has found the drugs interfered with the electrical activity controlling the heartbeat, increasing the risk of sudden death due to cardiac arrest by three times. Of the seven drugs studied, two are the antibiotics erythromycin and clarithromycin. Others on the risk-list are cisapride and domperidone, which are used to treat gastro-intestinal conditions, and the anti-psychotic medications chlorpromazine, haloperidol and pimozide.

All the drugs were known to prolong the heart's QTc interval - a measurement of the electrical activity linked to the contraction of heart muscle cells. Drugs that increase the QTc interval can cause life-threatening disruptions of heart rhythms. But the new study is thought to be the first to investigate links with sudden death.

The findings, which are published in the European Heart Journal, emerged from a study of 775 cases of sudden heart death between 1995 and 2003. Researchers found that the seven drugs were likely to have been responsible for 320 of these deaths. This equated to about 1,200 deaths in the UK and 15,000 across Europe and the US.

Dr Bruno Stricker, from the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, who led the study, said that although the findings were significant, it was important to keep them in proportion.

Between one and two people in every thousand die from sudden cardiac arrests a year. Among those who take the drugs the findings show the risk rises to three in a thousand.

Dr Stricker said: "These drugs are vital treatments for serious conditions in many cases, so it is essential that patients should not stop taking them on their own initiative. If they are concerned they should talk to their doctor."

The risks were highest among those who had been on the drugs for less than 90 days. The risk also tended to be higher among women than men and among older patients.

Many drugs had a disrupting effect on the heart's rhythm but sudden cardiac deaths caused by them were "relatively uncommon", Dr Stricker said.

He added: "Nevertheless, these findings are important to regulatory authorities because QTc prolongation is used as a surrogate marker for the prediction of adverse drug effects."

Cisapride was withdrawn in 2000 because of its effect on the heart. Some of the other drugs, such as erythromycin and chlorpromazine, are older drugs that have been supplanted by modern equivalents.

The British Heart Foundation said the findings should be treated with caution. Professor Peter Weissberg, the medical director, said: "It has been known for many years that certain drugs change the heart rhythm ... However, this is still a rare phenomenon, and not all of the deaths reported in this study can clearly be attributed to the effects of the drugs.

"Patients, particularly those with heart disease, should not take new medications without first discussing it with their doctor."

by Mother are you out there Fri Apr 29, 2005 03:14

"Pre-clinical trials test whether the drug is toxic in humans, and can be tested on patients who are already in a terminal condition."

Ehmmm Granny I've got some bad news it seems the doctors ain't giving you any chance of survival.

I know it's bad Granny but I’m afraid there's more..... You see Granny Louise and me have been having some money problems of late and.... well.... we kinda said that the boys over at Inveresk Research could shoot you up with bleach to see if it's safe.

- That's what they should have done to Terry Schiavo -

by The Red Fish Fri Apr 29, 2005 03:03

We need drugs, we need chemicals, we need household and industrial substances. Furthermore we need them to be safe for human use if that is best done by tests on animals, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any viable alternative, then it needs to be done.

I agree that if there is a situation where abuse and incompetence are endangering animal lives it must be stopped. These tests should be conducted by properly trained scientists who take an animal life only where it is vital for research. However the scare-mongering and outright hostility that is presented by those who oppose animal testing is only exacerbating the problem. If we live in a society where animal testing is forced into the shadows by a crazed minority then proper public scrutiny becomes impossible for fear of victimisation. Also those that test quickly move to a jurisdiction where regulation is slack and quite possibly use non-qualified staff. Therefore the abuse continues.

by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights Thu Apr 28, 2005 16:32 pagan_animal_liberation_front at hotmail dot com

ROWS of dogs restrained by harnesses with masks clamped over their noses, forcing them to inhale potentially harmful fumes.

A monkey clamped down so that its head cannot move, allowing gases to be pumped into its lungs.

The disturbing scenes will upset animal lovers and raise serious questions about whether scientists at a Lothians laboratory caused unnecessary suffering in the name of medical research.

The images form part of a dossier compiled by animal rights group Animal Defenders International (ADI), which has put practices at Inveresk Research under the spotlight.

The Home Office is studying an ADI report alleging animal cruelty at the laboratory in Elphinstone, East Lothian, where Inveresk carries out tests for some of the world’s biggest drugs manufacturers.

The report was compiled from internal documents and photographs, some dating back five years, leaked to ADI.

Among the allegations contained in the report is that several beagles had a toxic drug mistakenly pumped into their lungs, causing an agonising death. In another experiment, rabbits were said to have breast implants inserted into the muscles on their backs.

And it is alleged that ten rats were killed after being forced to breathe paint for more than 30 minutes in what was described as a "non-lethal limit test".

ADI said it was also keen to find out why the documents show drugs were being tested on animals at the same time as human trials were under way. It wants the Home Office to investigate whether Inveresk has breached its animal testing licence conditions.

American company Charles River Laboratories, which merged with Inveresk Research last year, said it was aware of the dossier. But it insisted it was committed to humane animal research and stated the company "adhere strictly to codes established by the world’s leading regulatory authorities".

Inveresk Research carries out experiments for companies including AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, and it is estimated it tests up to 25,000 animals a year.

ADI chief executive Jan Creamer said: "This report reveals the true horror of regulatory testing on animals. UK and EU regulations require that animals should only be used when necessary, and that if possible non-animal methods be sought.

"And yet we appear to see at Inveresk experiments on animals when human clinical trials are being undertaken, blunders during experimental procedures which cause animals severe suffering, animals being choked to death with paint for unnecessary tests."

The tests at Inveresk detailed in the report stretch back to 1998, when the experimental psoriasis drug VX-497 was being tested for an American drugs company.

During the testing, 48 beagles had the drug pumped into their stomachs, but two animals died after the drug was mistakenly pumped into their lungs, according to the report.

Dogs in several of the studies are said to have picked up injuries from fighting, which ADI claimed was linked to the cramped conditions the animals are kept in.

The documents also detail testing of an anti-depressant drug from GlaxoSmithKline in 2000, after the drug was already being taken by humans in a clinical trial. Despite this, it is claimed more than 40 dogs were killed after undergoing weeks of tests, with many given dosages considered by the scientists involved to be too high.

The experimental drug, NS2389, was also administered to 210 rats over a one-week study. The animals suffered symptoms including abnormal colouring of their ears and tail, black staining around eyes, broken teeth, hair loss, abnormal vocalisation, irregular breathing and salivation.

Development of the anti-depressant was stopped less than a year later.

A separate test, for Hempel’s Marine Paints, of Denmark, was said to involve ten rats, which were immobilised in tubes and made to breathe liquid paint. After three hours, half of the animals were dead and the survivors, at the point of death, were killed.

The report also carried details of experimental asthma drugs being injected into monkeys, even though the drug would be inhaled by humans.

And it highlights experiments commissioned by a US company to see whether breast implant materials cause irritation.

In an experiment described by Inveresk in the leaked documents as likely to cause "moderate" suffering, breast implants were inserted into the muscles on the backs of three rabbits. After 28 days of examination, during which time it is thought the animals would have suffered "significant pain and discomfort" the rabbits were killed for a post-mortem examination.

ADI campaigns manager Tim Phillips said: "These shocking documents are internal reports taken from Inveresk.

"We will not let this matter drop and will be pressing MPs to ensure there is a full Home Office inquiry and that all the findings are made public."

Mr Phillips added that if no action was forthcoming from the Home Office the group may seek a private legal action against Inveresk Research. A Home Office spokesman said: "I can confirm we have received this report and we are studying it to see what action, if any, should be taken.

"The use of animals in scientific procedures is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is widely viewed as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world.

"It offers a high level of protection against mistreatment, while realising the need to use animals for testing in medical research, the development of new drugs and scientific testing.

"If a company was found to be in breach of its licence that would be an offence under the Animals Act."

Scottish SPCA superintendent Mike Flynn, who has in the past inspected the Inveresk laboratories, called for companies to be more open to the public.

"The Home Office are incredibly strict and it should be said that if you over-legislate then these companies will simply move abroad, where there are no regulations.

"There has been a general decrease in the number of animals being tested on and companies are making an effort to stop using monkeys, though this can lead to more dogs or mice being used.

"What we want to do is make companies reveal their test results publicly, so the same tests do not have to be performed again and again in different countries.

"If these companies were more open to the public it would allow people to see the good practice that goes on and the importance of animal testing, as well as reducing the amount of testing needed."

THE FACTS

INVERESK Research started up 16 years ago as a tiny science venture on the outskirts of the East Lothian village of Elphinstone.

It has since grown to become part of one of the biggest firms in Scotland and is undoubtedly one of the country’s biggest scientific successes of recent years.

Today, the company employs 900 people in Scotland. As well as its main plant, near Tranent, it has research facilities in Riccarton, Morningside, and Glasgow.

Their main source of work is taking untested drugs from the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies and testing them, both on human volunteers and animals.

Before any company can put a new drug on the market, it is required by law to go through three stages of trials, the first of which is pre-clinical testing.

This is the main business of Inveresk. Pre-clinical trials test whether the drug is toxic in humans, and can be tested on patients who are already in a terminal condition.

Primates, rats and mice are also commonly used.

Their work also involves developing and distributing treatments for human diseases including cancer.

Last year, Inveresk Research merged with American company Charles River Laboratories, one of the world's biggest breeders and sellers of laboratory mice and rats, in a deal worth £816 million.

INVERESK EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT FIVE YEARS AGO, SAYS COMPANY

A SPOKESMAN for Charles River Laboratories stressed that the experiments outlined in ADI’s report happened five years ago.

And he highlighted the important benefits animal testing can bring about.

He said: "Charles River Laboratories is aware of the publication of photographs and documents related to work carried out approximately five years ago at our recently acquired Inveresk facility.

"Charles River Laboratories is firmly committed to the welfare and humane care of research animals and to the advancement of drugs, devices and therapies that save lives and enhance the quality of life for people and animals. The company is a world leader in the humane care of animals and adheres strictly to codes established by the world's leading regulatory authorities. The company has also implemented additional standards including a local ethics committee in place at each site.

"Since its founding nearly 60 years ago, Charles River has built a culture of caring and established itself as a worldwide leader in the humane care of research animals.

"We continue to raise awareness and provide training to all employees on the importance of humane care of research animals and to emphasise how our heightened standards of care positively influence medical research.

"Toxicology, the science involving the study of adverse effects of drugs, chemicals and other agents on living organisms, is critical to the drug development process and is mandated by law. "According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, the use of animals in toxicology studies is essential because of the similarities between their genetic and physiological systems and human systems.

"To date, in vitro alternatives to animal research do not exist which would eliminate the need for the toxicology studies required to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs and other products which are of benefit to both people and animals. Non-animal research such as computer models, in vitro research, clinical observation and epidemiology are used whenever appropriate, but fall well short of what is required and can only serve as adjuncts to basic animal research.

"From preventing polio to finding cures for cancer, animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance in both human and animal health. Charles River Laboratories is proud of the role we play in helping save lives and improving the quality of life for people and animals."

by micheailin o'cinnsealach Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:11 saoirse32 at fastmail dot fm

I think the reason you will never get these sadistic bastards to discontinue animal experimentation is that there is a distinct category of sub-human beings who go into research knowing they will get to do these kinds of things to animals. They enjoy inflicting injury and suffering--or they would not be there. If they did not, they would adhere to their own minimal standards. Just as children are magnets for perverts, research animals are magnets for despicable assholes who torture, abuse and cause unspeakable suffering to captive, innocent creatures. May they all rot in hell.