New study condemns animal testing as a sham

[compassionategirl]

New study confirms animal testing is a sham!

 

A new study funded by the National Health Service (NHS) that looked into the whole question of vivisection has highlighted some damning evidence that not only exposes the cruelty inherent in vivisection but also illustrates that it doesn’t work.

 

The report shows that: animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work. Clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the animal research is completed. Drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway. A drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless used in people and finally, that most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results.

 

Anti-vivisection groups have for some time been questioning the relevance of using animals to replicate human disease. There is an Early Day Motion (EDM92) currently going through Parliament that is asking for an independent scientific evaluation that would look into all facets of experimenting on animals and most importantly would give a definite answer to the question of: is vivisection the best way of finding cures for human diseases? However pro-vivisection groups have been actively trying to sabotage the EDM. For example, the group known as Pro-test, who in public state they want a debate on the subject are actively encouraging their supporters to put pressure on the 250 MP's who have already signed it. There is no doubt that there is great fear within the pro-vivisection lobby that any independent evaluation would expose the fraudulent nature of the vivisection industry.

 

The survey conducted by the NHS compared the clinical outcome of six medical treatments with the results obtained from experiments on animals. The areas of research related to head injuries, blood clotting, stroke, disease in premature babies and osteoporosis. Each of the six topics was analysed by systematic review. A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a thorough search and critical appraisal of individual studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine these valid studies. In other words, systematic reviews normally represent the best available data.

 

One systematic review looked at the use of steroids in treating people with severe head injuries. The NHS study showed that, whereas the animal experiments had provided mixed results, the drug clearly increased the risk of death in patients and had to be discontinued. Two other studies examined the effect of new drugs for the treatment of stroke. In both cases, the animal experiments showed that the drug improved the animals' condition after being deliberately brain damaged. In human patients, however, the drugs increased the risk of death and one of them increased the risk of disability.

 

Andre Menache MRCVS, Scientific Consultant to Animal Aid commented on the finding of the report: "This high-quality survey is very significant in the debate about whether or not animal experiments have any relevance to human medicine. The answer provided by this NHS-commissioned report is that, across a range of important human ailments, animal research provides misleading and conflicting information and is therefore dangerously unreliable".

[Aaron]

CG can we get a link to the study?

[Richard]

Excellent, yeah I'd like a link to the source if possible

[compassionategirl]

This is where I got the article from.

 

http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/uk/20060613nhs.php

[Guest]

Its crazy that they just don't pay people to do these studies(not vivisection although I'd give it up to the person willing to take part)...they spend all this money doing these tests and it almost doesn't matter how bad the side effects are...the FDA generally always gives permission to study the substance on humans...not that I'm looking out for their interests or anything but for their own good it would benefit them to just pay people to test on them...I don't think its realy a good thing for people to do that but they do it anyway and atleast its voluntary and it would be much more accurate.

[9nines]

Is the reason for testing more "legal" than "medical"? Would not doing the testing (at least the company tried to find out the safety, the defendants would claim) be shown as negligence, in court, if later problems with the drug were found?

[Guest]

Its far more legal than medical since people suffer side effects all the time...but thats what waivers and warnings are for...I'm sorry but you shouldn't be able to sue a cigarrette company for getting lung cancer no matter how bad the company is...same with most drugs...if your warned your warned...for the most part any new drug is gonna have known side effects before they even decide to make it since the side effects often come from the idea of solving a problem. If you've got acne due to high testosterone..and you take a drug that lowers it you'll be likely to get the side effects someone gets from low testosterone...very simple.