Vegetarian Discussion: It's Time To Test The Testers

It's Time To Test The Testers
Posts: 38

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Pearl
2006-05-07 12:07:02 EST
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withdrawn from the global market in 2004, appeared safe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.

\ufffd 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



D*@.
2006-05-07 14:58:00 EST
On Sun, 7 May 2006 17:07:02 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rupert
2006-05-07 20:10:46 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 17:07:02 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >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.
>

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.


Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
2006-05-07 22:02:50 EST
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.


Pearl
2006-05-08 03:47:23 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:lpgs52dts651jhhg68kjdiehskkmsnagid@4ax.com...

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






Leif Erikson
2006-05-08 10:13:21 EST
pearl wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:lpgs52dts651jhhg68kjdiehskkmsnagid@4ax.com...
>
> 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.

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

Leif Erikson
2006-05-08 10:34:30 EST
pearl wrote:
> 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.

Pearl
2006-05-08 11:18:43 EST
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:5mI7g.1342$u4.1290@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message news:lpgs52dts651jhhg68kjdiehskkmsnagid@4ax.com...
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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:
>
> \ufffdThe statement that animal experimentation delayed
> the \ufffdfight against polio\ufffd 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.
>
> \ufffdInoculation 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

"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




Leif Erikson
2006-05-08 12:57:40 EST
uneducated whore lesley blabbered:
> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:5mI7g.1342$u4.1290@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > uneducated whore lesley blabbered:
> > > <dh@.> wrote in message news:lpgs52dts651jhhg68kjdiehskkmsnagid@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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
>
> "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.


Leif Erikson
2006-05-08 12:57:48 EST
uneducated whore lesley blabbered:
> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:5mI7g.1342$u4.1290@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > uneducated whore lesley blabbered:
> > > <dh@.> wrote in message news:lpgs52dts651jhhg68kjdiehskkmsnagid@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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
>
> "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.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron