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:
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
Back to Top
