Vivisection
Millions of animals are tortured every year in laboratories around
the world, including here in Australia.
What's wrong with animal experimentation?
Animal Experimentation is said to be necessary for the welfare and health
of humans. This is simply not true.
Experimentation on animals continues because it is beneficial to the huge
Medical, Technology, Research, Drug Company alliance that is increasingly
intervening in our lives and our health. Nearly 70% of Australians take
prescription drugs, an indictment of our health system, and all of them
are tested on animals. This generates huge wealth for the companies.
 |
Infections like Scarlet Fever were well on the way out by the
time antibiotics were created in the 40/50s. Better housing, greater
hygiene, clean water, improved living conditions and less crowding
saw these infections largely defeated. |
Animal experiments mislead doctors and the general public. Diseases
such as cancer, that are artificially induced in laboratory animals,
have no relationship to the diseases which afflict humans. These
are largely caused by lifestyle and pollution.
"It is not possible to apply to the human species experimental
information deprived from inducing cancer in animals."
- Dr Kenneth Starr, NSW Cancer Council.
This chimpazee shown right, was infected with
syphillis, a disease that does not occur naturally in chimpanzees.
What mind could think that this cruelty could be of benefit to
anyone? Primates are similar in many ways to humans, but they
are also VERY different too.
|
|
If we don't use animals does that mean we have
to experiment on humans?
When we take a new drug, we are part of an experiment, because we differ
from other species. Drugs which have minor, or no side effects on animals,
have provoked extreme reactions in humans. The chart below lists drugs
which were thoroughly tested on animals and declared safe, but when used
on humans they injured and killed.
*** Some 'thoroughly tested' drugs that
injured and killed. ***
|
How can we improve our health without animal
experiments?
Australia spends approximately $20 billion a year on health.
- 99.3% of this amount goes to "cure", that is to doctors, hospitals,
drugs and surgery - much of which is based on animal experimentation,
and all of which is an action after the event.
- Only 0.7% of the budget is allocated to "prevention".
- But 75% of deaths in Australia are preventable and of these,
60% are diet-related. Therefore it is our chosen lifestyles
which is making us sick.
Breakdown of cancer-related deaths in Australia.
|
 |
Are there alternatives to animal experimentation?
There are many alternative techniques to the use of animals. Chief
amongst them is clinical study - that is, learning from the humans
who have the disease. Listed below are further methods which so
not involve animals.
Replacements for Vivisection
- Human tissues, cells and organs in containers (cultures) with the
proposed drug, to study how it will act in the human body
- Chromatography and mass spectrometry to separate drugs at their
smallest (modecular) level to identify their properties
- Quantum pharmacology using quantum mechanics to understand the modecular
structure of chemicals
- Mechanical models and simulators to teach and test. Simulators already
exists for the heart, circulatory, lungs and respiratory systems,
and funding should be encouraged for the design of simulators for
the rest of the human body
- Surveys of diseases of other cultures, life styles, diets: human
case studies, autopsy reports and statistical analyses of effects
of various factors on the incidence of disease
- Discarded human placentas may be used for mocrovascular surgery
practice and can provide accurate data for sensitivity to chemicals
- Human volunteers can be paid to participate in controlled studies
of diets, vitamins and conditions that effect the rate of disease
- Audio visual aids can be used for teaching medical students. Centralisation
of existing data to provide easier access to results of research.
What can I do?
- Show this leaflet to people you know, lend it to your friends and
relatives.
- Discuss the issue with others.
- Take responsibility for your own health and make adjustments to
your lifestyle to foster good health.
- Buy cruelty-free products and boycott all goods that are animal
tested.
- Write to your local university and ask their position on animal
experiments. Explain why you think they should stop. Get your friends
to do the same.
- Write to the Minister for Local Government at Parliament House and
tell him/her your attitude to animal experimentation.
- Study the issue. Literature is available from Animal Liberation
and other animal rights groups.
See our interview
with Don Barnes.
Don Barnes used to test
on animals. Now he is one of the loudest opponents of it.
For more information: try these websites:
Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine
American for
Medical Advancement
And lots of scandalous information at the links below:
The Guardian. 7 February 2002.
Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug
companies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,646078,00.html
Drug firms accused of distorting research
Sarah Boseley, health editor Monday September 10, 2001The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,549283,00.html
Drug firms fund biased research, warn editors By Jeremy Laurance,
Health Editor
Independent 10 September 2001
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=93225
The Pharmaceutical Drug Racket
http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=8
Animal research, lies, the pharma-cabal and HLS - including the
quote about Cass; "Cass tried to intimidate me". A classic.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews7-35.php
Why The FDA Requires Animal Testing
Dr. Ray Greek Scientific Advisor, NAVS
President, Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA)
http://www.navs.org/news/story_display.cfm?SectionID=News&NewsID=13&Dr_Greek=yes
Pharmaceutical companies continue to test on animals and the Food
and Drug Administration continues to require it, but not for the reasons
you might suspect. It is not that the information garnered from animal
models is necessarily accurate or predictive, and certainly not that
it protects consumers.
BMJ. 9 February 2002. 2002;324:320.
Drug companies withholding data.
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7333/320/b
Expert tricked into commercial endorsement
The Guardian. 7 February 2002.
'It said the drug was the best thing since sliced bread. I don't think
it is'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,646196,00.html
Species differences and unreliability admitted by the pro-vivs -
Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI) admits (in
response to the statement: "One reads that there are some medicines
which work in humans but which would kill animals...") that: "It is
true that there are species differences and susceptibility to certain
medicines, which is in part due to differences in the way the body
handles that particular medicine..."
http://www.abpi.org.uk/publications/publication_details/mttur/mttur_QnA.htm
American Heart Association admittance
(Article in Circulation -- Idris et al. 94 (9): 2324)
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/94/9/2324
Science Journal published a national study on the reliability of
animal research protocol reviews. Results from the study suggest that
these reviews suffer from low reliability. The study was conducted
by Prof Scott Plous of Wesleyan University and Prof Harold Herzog
of Western Carolina University. To read more about the research, please
see the press release prepared by the Wesleyan University Office of
Communications at:
http://www.socialpsychology.org/articles/scipress.htm
Go to top of page
|