If animal experiments are so dangerous, misleading, and totally unreliable, why are they relied on so heavily today? One possible reason is that it is because they are so unreliable, and that different species will react in different ways to different substances, that experiments on animals are favoured by researchers. Drugs are constantly being released which have caused cancer, paralysis, blindness or death, to laboratory animals. This is of apparently no concern to the drug manufacturers in their attempt to get their product onto the shelves of the chemist, as long as they can discover a species, or type, of animal which has shown no visible signs or ill-effect when force-fed with the substance or drug. If the drug had subsequently caused serious damage to people, then they (the drug manufacturers) could argue that all of the necessary safety tests had been carried out on say, rabbits, cats, dogs, mice, or whatever type of animal had "proved" that the drug was harmless (this is called "covering one's own hide"). Medical history has borne out the fact that drugs, passed as harmless by animal tests, have caused cancer, paralysis, blindness, death, etc., in people. Most of these unfortunate victims (or their bereaved families) who have tried to sue the drugs company responsible for manufacturing a potentially harmful substance have found it extremely difficult (almost impossible) to win their case in a court of law: the drug manufacturers would have "covered their own hides" and found a type or species of animal that had suffered no apparent ill-effect from the substance in question, hence they could claim that the substance or drug had been sufficiently tested and had proven "totally safe" in laboratory animals (and therefore safe for people). Those who carry out, and support, animal experimentation are, quite literally, getting away with murder.
Animal experiments are therefore extremely flexible: they can justify the launch of a new product ("experiments on rabbits indicated no side effects..."), or can be rejected and abandoned as irrelevant if anything disastrous should happen when the product is used by people ("we carried out all the relevant safety tests, but animals don't react in the same way as people you know").
Another reason why animal research is portrayed as credible is that, over the years, they have claimed successes which were not their own. The supporters of animal experiments have claimed , for instance, that penicillin was tested in rabbits and cats before being "allowed' to be given to the first human patient; but fail to point out that all of the rabbits and cats in question died as a result of being given the drug. They have claimed that the world's first asthma drug was discovered only through experiments on animals, but fail to mention that the researcher responsible for the discovery was opposed to animal experiments and believed that the results of such experiments could not be applied to people. He instead tested the drugs on himself to cure his asthma which he brought on through his allergic reaction to hamsters. They have claimed that blood transfusions only came about after the discovery of the rhesus factor in experiments on rhesus monkeys, but fail to mention that experiments on animals delayed blood transfusions for over 200 years. Nor do they mention that the rhesus factor was discovered by a New York Doctor in 1939 studying human patients, and published over a year before the experiments on rhesus monkeys had ever began. Anaesthetics (another apparent success of animal experiments) owe nothing to animal research. Morphine, for instance, (known since 1803) was rejected by animal researchers because it caused maniacal excitement in dogs, cats, and mice. Chloroform (a clinical discovery in 1828) was successfully used in the first ever anaesthetised surgical operation, but was later discredited and discarded as an anaesthetic because experiments on animals (dogs, horses, monkeys, goats, cats, & rabbits) had shown chloroform to be useless as an anaesthetic!
There are numerous others which could have been mentioned; in fact, all of the major medical discoveries were discovered without the use of animals, but the supporters of animal experiments later claimed these successes to be the direct result of experiments on animals - probably to add some credibility to their useless line of work which has not advanced, but retarded, medical progress. This is backed up by a number of medical doctors who have gone on record as saying that they "cannot think of a single medical breakthrough that was produced as the result of an animal experiment".
Other reasons why animal researchers fight so vehemently, or pay others to defend their trade are numerous: Firstly, if they admit that animal experiments are of no value this would make a mockery of their work. Their achievements would be permanently discredited; and their professional lives would have been wasted. Secondly they are reluctant to change their ways: they have been brought up to believe in animal experiments that no amount of evidence or reasoning can cause them to change their minds. Thirdly, they would have to learn new skills: how the human body works (most have no medical qualifications), as well as complex statistical procedures (which at present they lack, nor probably have the intelligence to learn). Most frightening of all, drugs companies have a vested interest in selling drugs (the more drugs they sell, the more money they make). They do not really want diseases to be cured. They make far more money out of temporarily alleviating symptoms than they would if they actually cured diseases; and make nothing at all out of advice which prevents disease. In other words, they have a vested interest in people becoming (and staying) ill.
Ask yourself why animals are still used for research into human cancer, for instance, when other methods have proven to be more speedy and reliable? If a cure was found for cancer tomorrow, it would mean that thousands of researchers and billions of pounds a year would be lost, and the whole of the cancer-research industry would be permanently ruined. Why then, do you think that research into human disease is largely performed by experiments on animals?
If all animal experiments were abolished today then new drugs would have to be tested in a more reliable way. The vast majority of drugs would never be allowed to be used by people since their effects would already be known. Within a few years, the world's largest drugs companies would become bankrupt. Is this then, the real reason why animal experiments continue today: greed? It can't be because animal experiments are reliable, effective, that they predict side-effects, indicate the poisonous of a drug, and they cannot possibly show how a substance would react if given to a human - they fail on every single one of these counts. It is clear that animal experiments should be abolished immediately.
If animal experiments were stopped today, they would never be brought back and medicine could advance at the same rate the rest of technology is advancing, instead of remaining static in a retarded Pre-Victorian era. "When animal experiments are finally abolished, doctors and scientists will look back in disbelief and laugh at today's laboratories where animals are used to test new drugs intended for people" (Dr. Vernon Coleman, M. D.).
Stephen Motson
ã ‚¬ ‚¬
Dr. Vernon Coleman has once again thrown out a challenge to television stations calling for a live debate on animal experiments. Although he has been trying for several years, no vivisectors have had the bottle to debate the subject with him on TV. As a result he has issued the following statement:
"There are 20,000 vivisectors in Britain. I believe they are evil. They claim that animal experiments are essential - and that without them human beings would die. But I believe the scientific evidence clearly shows that animal experiments help no-one. I don't think any patient has ever been saved by animal experiments. But I do believe that thousands have been killed because of them. I honestly believe that anyone who claims animal experiments are essential or even useful is either an ignorant fool or a lying, scheming b******. In my view, vivisectors are as weak as they are ignorant, as gutless as they are pitiless. I repeat the public challenge I have made scores of times before to ALL vivisectors. Meet me in a full debate on live TV. Tragically, I fear the vivisectors will not respond. For I suspect that in addition to being evil they are all cowards. Please send a copy of this challenge to your local university and your local TV station. Let's see if we can smoke one or two of the mean-spirited low-life bastards out of the woodwork and into the bright lights of debate. If these toxic monsters won't debate with me you'll know why. They won't defend what they do because deep down in their shrivelled, malignant little hearts they know they are wrong, they know I am right. And they know that they will lose."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
