Ban Animal Testing.

dublin | animal rights | opinion/analysis Wednesday November 10, 2004 23:16 by Ciaran Long - Alliance For Animal Rights pagan_animal_liberation_front at hotmail dot com

Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans. At least 450 different methods exist with which can replace animal experiments. So, why is animal testing still legal?

Questions for the pro-vivisectionist..

(1)They say that animal testing is essential for testing drugs intended for human use. But if animal testing is so reliable why are all new drugs tested on humans in subsequent clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance?

(2)They say vivisection is reliable and yet vivisectors have admitted that the accuracy of animal testing in respect of human drugs can be as little as 5%. On what basis do they claim to know more than professional, lifelong vivisectors?

(3)If animal testing is as reliable as they claim, why do many drugs which pass the animal testing stage as safe and effective then have to be withdrawn when tested on humans in one of the three clinical trials that follow?

(4)If animal testing is as reliable as they claim, then how are anti-vivisection organisations able to produce very lengthy lists of drugs which, after being deemed safe in animal testing, have had to be withdrawn or have their labelling amended to include adverse reactions which only became apparent after human usage?

(5)If animal testing is reliable as you claim, then why do the websites of drug regulators in, for example, the UK (MHRA) and the USA (FDA), have ever-lengthening lists of drugs which have been withdrawn or have required warnings to be issued after they being licensed for marketing?

(6)If animal testing is as reliable as they claim, why do many drugs which pass the animal testing stage as safe and effective have to be withdrawn when they are licensed for general marketing due to serious, or fatal adverse reactions in humans?

(7)How can animal testing be reliable if, as is admitted, it takes seven years before the adverse reactions of many drugs, that were not manifested in the animal testing, become apparent? (Researchers said: 'Our data found that only half of all serious adverse reactions are detected seven years after a drug enters the market' and this means 'Millions of patients are exposed to potentially unsafe drugs each year'. 'New drugs called riskier than old', Washington Post, 1 May 2002).

(8)They assert that animal testing ensures new 'life-saving drugs', but if this is so, why are most of the 'new' drugs produced merely copycat versions of drugs already available?

(9)They say animal testing ensures new 'life-saving' drugs, but of the very few drugs produced, most are for western 'lifestyle; illnesses - so if they are that concerned about the illnesses for which new drugs are being produced, why do they not campaign for ill-health prevention? Doesn't the fact that they only defend vivisection and say nothing about preventing ill-health betray their real agenda, i.e., their only concern is not human health but defending the drug industry's profits?

(10)They say that new drugs are vital for curing human illnesses, and anyone who opposes animal testing is preventing these cures from being developed. So why do drug companies who carry out this supposedly 'vital animal testing' to produce these drugs, go to such lengths to prevent other drug companies from producing generic/cheaper versions of drugs, an action that ensures many people cannot obtain the drugs/treatment they need?

(11)They say that most people support vivisection, so why are pro-vivisection groups so dependent on being financed by the drug companies rather than all these people that they claim support animal testing? And why is it that there is so much reluctance to admit to this funding and advise the amounts involved? Would they advise the amount that the drug industry (or agencies representing it), pay to the organisation they represent/belong to? Are they aware that such funding means they are merely a 'front' or mouthpiece for the drugs industry and its pursuit of profit at the expense of people's health?

Summary:-

(1)Animal testing does not prevent testing on humans as all new drugs have to be tested in clinical trials with humans after the animal testing stage. It is the clinical trials with humans which determine whether a drug will be marketed.

(2)The vast majority of 'new' drugs being produced are not new, but are merely copies of ones already available.

(3)Many of the new drugs which are genuinely 'new' are for western 'lifestyle' illnesses which could be avoided/prevented.

(4)Few 'successful' animal experiments which are said to offer hope for humans ever proceed any further than the animal laboratory.

(5)Many drugs which pass the animal testing as safe and effective have to be withdrawn during the clinical trials with humans.

(6)It is admitted that the correlation of adverse drug reactions between human and animals can be as little as 5 per cent. One vivisector admitted that in some cancer research it would be possible to obtain more accurate results by 'tossing a coin'.

(7)It is admitted that it takes many years of human use before the safety/effectiveness of a drug can be verified for certain.

(8)Anti-vivisectionists do not support vivisection by using animal-tested drugs. As this testing introduces uncertainties, risks and false results, they want this stage to be abandoned. However, they have no choice in the same way that we all have to drink water with fluoride or breathe air which is polluted - whether we agree with this or not. Moreover, if pro-vivisectionists wish to defend the accuracy of animal testing, they need to explain why they use those drugs which are unsafe/ineffective in animals but are safe/effective in humans.

(9)It is acknowledged that the effect of a drug varies even according to the gender and age of the patient: if such differences occur within the one species it is therefore absurd to assert that test results from one species can be extrapolated to a completely different species.

(10)The few laws and regulations which exist to provide just the barest minimum protection to laboratory animals have been repeatedly shown to be inadequate by numerous undercover exposures of laboratories.

(11)The primary reason for drug production is profit rather people's health and this is clearly demonstrated by drug companies opposing the production of cheaper versions of their drugs.