The History of Medical Progress (by Dr. Ray Greek, Director of the
Medical Research Modernization Committee)

INTRODUCTION

Why do we experiment on animals? Are they just funny looking people
with exactly the same organ tissues and diseases we have? When did all
this start? 

In the first century, the Church prohibited performing autopsies on
humans. So, the scientists did what they thought was the next best
thing. Scientists like Galen dissected animals and applied his results
to humans. Galen was wrong in many of the conclusions he derived from
animal experiments.  In fact, animal experiments led scientists astray
for centuries. Galen thought that the "heart was a warming machine for
two separate types of blood. He was convinced veins and arteries were
not connected and blood flowed both backward and forward from the
heart." Historians have said this about Galen:

"based mainly on the study of apes and pigs, and he unhesitatingly
transferred his discoveries to human anatomy, thus perpetuating many
errors."

This misinformation lasted for centuries. Unfortunately, we have not
progressed as far as some people think. We are still experimenting on
animals, despite the fact that better techniques are available.

The first big step for medical discoveries was during the Renaissance
when the Italian scientists and artists began to perform autopsies on
humans. This corrected many of Galen's errors. Vesalius was condemned
to death by the Church and had to hide because his discoveries
disproved Galen's theories. The Church had adopted Galen's positions
and was reluctant to change. Much as the scientific community of today
is reluctant to accept progress.

During the 19th century, many discoveries were made because of human
experiments. Harvey described the circulation of the blood. Many have
tried to credit Harvey's discovery to animal experiments (or
vivisection). Lawson Tait, a famous nineteenth century surgeon, had a
rather different impression of this part of medical history. He
stated:

"That he [Harvey] made any contribution to the facts of the case
[blood circulation] by vivisection is conclusively disprovedIt is,
moreover, perfectly clear that were it incumbent on anyone to prove
the circulation of the blood as a new theme, it could not be done by
any vivisectional process but could, at once, be satisfactorily
established by a dead body and an injecting syringe." 

Medical discoveries were rampant during the 19th century. The
stethoscope, blood pressure manometer, microscopes and a host of
others were all discovered without animal experiments. This had not
dissuaded people who earn their livelihood from making the claim that
animal experiments were vital to these discoveries. If you made your
livelihood off experimenting on animals, you would have a vested
interest in saying the same thing.

Animal experiments really took off in the 19th century, largely due to
the efforts of Claude Bernard. He had this to say about laboratory
experiments on animals:

"Experiments on animals, with deleterious substances or in harmful
circumstances, are very useful and entirely conclusive for the
toxicity and hygiene of man. Investigations of medicinal or of toxic
substances also are wholly applicable to man from the therapeutic
point of view; for as I have shown, the effects of these substances
are the same on man as on animals, save for difference in degree." 
"I consider hospitals only as the entrance to scientific medicine;
they are the first field of observation which a physician enters; but
the true sanctuary of medical science is a laboratory; only there will
he seek explanations of life in the normal and pathological states by
means of experimental analysis. "In leaving the hospital, a
physicianmust go on into his laboratory; and there, by experiments on
animals, he will account for what he has observed in his patients,
whether about the actions of drugs or about the origin of
morbid lesions in organs and tissues. There, in a word, he will
achieve true medical science." 

That is an amazing statement. Animals are more like humans than
humans. Unfortunately for patients today, scientists still believe the
preposterous words of this man.

______________________________________________________________________




Surgical Advances

Would you want a surgeon to operate on you if he or she had never
performed the procedure on humans? How about if the operation had only
been done on dogs? Do you think surgery residents should watch their
teachers perform operations and then very gradually be allowed to help
with the operation until finally they are able to do the entire
procedure under supervision or should they practice on animals and
then on you? How were all the surgical advances discovered and how do
physicians learn to be surgeons? Is modern surgery the result of
animal experimentation or human clinical observation? Have
technological discoveries or animal experiments led to the great
advances in surgery? What have animal experiments done for the field
of surgery? 

Surgery would not be possible without anesthesia. Indeed, anesthesia
is one of the contributions to the history of medicine from the United
States. Physicians discovered the properties of anesthetics while
having so-called ether parties in the 1800's. Participants noticed
that while inhaling the substances, they became insensitive to pain.
Thus, the field of anesthesiology was born. Anesthesiology and
infectious control allowed surgery to advance out of the dark ages.
Many famous surgeons of the 19th and 20th centuries opposed animal
experimentation for surgery. Lawson Tait stated that animal
experimentation should be stopped "so the energy and skill of
scientific investigators could be directed into better and safer
channels." Tait stated that he had been led astray time and time again
by animal experiments. He believed vivisection wrong because of
misleading results and because focus was diverted from more reliable
data. Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famous Mayo Clinic, stated:

"I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should
be abolished...I know of no discovery that could not have been
obtained without it...." 

Sir Frederick Treves stated about performing surgery on dogs, 
"my experiments had done little but unfit me to operate with the human
intestine." 

The differences between human anatomy and physiology were again cited
by president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Dr. Moynihan who
stated,  "Has not the contribution of the laboratory to surgery of the
stomach, for example, been almost negligible when it has not been
potentially dangerous because divergent from human experience and
therefore inapplicable." 

Perhaps the most important surgical advances have resulted from new
technology. CT scans, MRI's, ultrasound and other technologies allow
quicker and more accurate diagnosis of disease. Technological
contribution does not stop with the diagnosis however. New sutures
have been developed which allow very small incisions in the eye, heart
and other tissue. Microscopes which allow surgeons to reattach severed
fingers, hands and arms, have revolutionized surgery and saved many
people from devastating injuries. The microscope is also used for the
common procedure of placing tubes in a child's ears in order to
decrease ear infections and hearing loss. Microscopic discectomy, the
removal of a herniated disc in the back is accomplished with the
microscope. The microscope is also used in neurosurgery to allow very
small precise cuts of tumors off nerves. The development of the
stapler has done away with sutures in some operations. Making for a
better closure and quicker operating time. Lasers now allow
ophthalmologists to correct potentially blinding conditions without
anesthesia and as on an outpatient basis. Lasers are also used in
removing birth marks from the face and aid in stanching blood flow
during liver transplant surgery. 

One advance in technology which has saved many patients from surgery
and from death is the endoscope. These instruments are commonly used
in order to visualize the inner colon, looking for early cancers. They
are also used in the upper GI tract to look for cancer and ulcers.
Prior to this patients were forced to swallow or have placed via an
enema, a chalk like substance which did not always provide adequate
visualization. Many procedures which would have required a major
surgery can now be performed non-surgically via endoscope. Along the
same lines of viewing without cutting, many operations are now
performed as laparoscopic procedures. Appendectomy, cholecystectomy,
hysterectomy, hernia repair and others were once only possible with a
large incision and a prolonged recovery. Laparoscopes allow surgeons
to make several very small incisions thus decreasing the likelihood of
infection and other complications and decreasing recovery time. 

As more and more technology became available, more specialized
training was needed in order to use it. General surgery divided in to
neurosurgery, urological surgery, ophthalmology, otorhinolaryngology,
plastics, orthopedics, vascular, thoracic, cardiac, transplant surgery
and other sub specialties. This led to even more knowledge and further
technological refinements. The invention of the ophthalmoscope in 1851
allowed physicians to see inside the eye for the first time. The
otoscope, in 1860, allowed visualization inside the ear and the
laryngoscope in 1874, allowed better visualization of the larynx. The
ability to look at tissue under a microscope utilizing certain stains
and dyes allowed surgeons to decide whether or not to remove tissue or
treat more conservatively. Tissue implants including artificial eyes,
heart valves, penile prosthesis, skin expanders used in order to
harvest more skin for skin grafts, artificial blood vessels,
pacemakers and other advances came to us via technology not
animal research. 

The field of neurosurgery owes much to advances in radiology. The
ability to actually see inside the nervous system and thus find
exactly where the problem lay was the sticking point in neurosurgery
for decades. Better diagnostic techniques such as myelography,
angiography and MRI scanners, has revolutionized the field. One of the
first neurosurgeons was Harvey Cushing of Boston, who developed many
techniques and instruments. The concept of using electricity to
coagulate bleeding vessels was Cushing's idea. The old method of
sewing each individual vessel when it was bleeding was time consuming
and imprecise. Today virtually no operation is performed without
electrocautery. 

Other technical advances involving the microscope has allowed much
more pin point resection of tumors and lesions. This quote from Paul
Carrao, MD a former animal experimenter in head trauma exemplifies the
animal model dilemma:

"I just know what the literature shows, and I know what our results
were, and I challenge anybody to show that any of that[animal
research] has advanced the cause of the treatment of human head injury
one iota. The bulk of the knowledge that now exists and upon which the
treatment of head injuries is predicated is that which has been
derived from head injuries in the past, whether in the civilian sector
or in the military. In many ways the results which were obtained with
animals have been misleading, because in the case of quadrupeds, the
physiological mechanisms are different, so that the kinds of data
obtained from different systems - circulatory, the blood pressure and
so forth, respiratory, the cardiac - are different from those obtained
from human head injuries." 

One example of animal experimentation misleading surgeons is the
operation called Radial Keratotomy. This operation is performed in
order to enable patients to see better without glasses. The procedure
was initially performed on rabbits. But it blinded the first humans.
The problem was that the rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the
underside. The human cornea can only do this on the surface. Surgery
now performed only on the surface.

Thomas Starzl of Pittsburgh has been transplanting organs from animal
to humans for years. Starzl started by experimenting in the laboratory
for years and in the 1990s began to experiment on humans. He stated
that baboon liver transplants would be viable in humans in part
because baboons were resistant to hepatitis , a common cause of liver
failure and thus the need for a new liver. It was hoped that the
baboon liver would be resistant to the disease which infected the
patient. If the baboon liver functioned properly perhaps the patient
would not re-infect himself with the hepatitis. However even Starzl
admitted that, "a baboon liver could impose on a human recipient
lethal interspecies metabolic differences." 

Others were not so optimistic. An advocate of xenotransplantation at
Harvard, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss stated, "survival rates reported for
allotransplantation (human to human) in those patients with hepatitis
B is superior to that which we could expect from xenotransplantation."
At autopsy, Starzls' transplanted baboon livers proved to be carrying
hepatitis. Of interest is the fact that Dr. Auchincloss also stated
that,"successful rodent experiments do not make an adequate scientific
basis for human experimentation." 

Two baboon liver transplants were performed in 1993. One died within 4
weeks and the other 10 weeks. The quality of life during the time the
patients were alive was not something anyone would desire. Life in the
intensive care unit, unable to eat, walk, drink eliminate or even
breathe without constant mechanical assistance is not a decent quality
of life. The first baboon liver was infected with CMV, Simian Agent 8,
H.Papio and other diseases. Thomas Starzl of the University of
Pittsburgh has received over $8,000,000.00 in public funding in order
to experiment on baboons for xenotransplants. None have so far been
successful. Dr. Starzl expressed his contempt for preventative
measures when stated that he had a "cure for alcoholism" referring to
liver transplants.

Approximately 4,000 viruses have been identified which occur in
humans, animals, plants, and other organisms. Many of these can be
transmitted from xenotransplants (animal to human transplants).
Hepadnavirus, papillomavirus, retrovirus, aterivirus, togavirus,
adenovirus, parvovirus, hantavirus, papovavirus, and others can cross
over to humans, under the right circumstances. Some scientists also
postulate that Hepatitis B may have come to humans from chimpanzees.
Chimps harbor the virus asymptotically. 

The idea of species contamination is not new. Millions of doses of
polio vaccine were infected with SV40. This virus causes cancer in
humans. The Marburg virus, from monkeys, killed 7 people in 1967. The
clinical manifestations of the virus caused physicians in Germany to
describe their patients as having "blood pouring from all apertures."
The patients became demented, went into coma, and eventually died
secondary to heart failure. The survivors did not fare much better.
Chronic liver failure, impotence and insanity were long term
sequellae. HTLV-2 may have originated as STLV in monkeys. The disease
causes leukemia in humans. Jacob-Cruetzfeld can cross from sheep and
cows and other animals to humans. This is the virus that has been
associated with "mad cow disease" in Great Britain. Rodent
hantaviruses can spread from rodents to humans. Monkey pox,
elephantiasis, yellow fever, tuberculosis and other diseases have been
documented to spread from animals to humans. 

The macaque herpes B virus leads to brain infections in humans. It
is benign in monkeys. Scientists are now experimenting with pigs
because they do not believe pigs harbor deadly Ebola like viruses.
However, pigs do harbor pseudorabies, leptospirosis, erysipelas, wabah
babi, and others. The important question regarding any animal donor is
"what does it harbor that we do not know about?" New viruses are being
discovered in animals on a regular basis. Some of them do not harm the
host animal, but can be deadly for humans. Fortunately for the human
race, the viruses stay where they belong unless we disturb them.
Remember in the movie Jurassic Park when the character played by Jeff
Goldblum told the creator of Jurassic Park that "Nature finds a way."
We do not know as much as mother nature. We like to think we do, but
we don't. The public health implications of another retrovirus which
could mutate and be passed along like the common cold are
devastastating.

Arguably the invention to most change the face of medicine in the 20th
century was the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) machine. Dr. Gibbon's
machine was in part based on animal experiments. This was in part
responsible for the initial failure of the machine. Two out of 3 of
Gibbon's first patients died as a result of the heart-lung machine.
When the machine was revised based on studies of humans by Andresen,
the success rate increased. Andresen studied human circulation and
contributed the low flow theory of circulation to science. This is
when the blood volume is reduced in order for the patient to be
successfully connected to the heart lung machine. It was this human
data which allowed the CPB machine to be successful on humans.
Consider this statement from one of the inventors of modern
cardiopulmonary bypass: 

"Biomedical research does not need animals any more, but should use
computers. It is pointless and even dangerous to continue following
the traditional paths, for the differences between man and animals is
so great that it mostly leads us into error. Artificial heart valves,
for example, and also the pacemaker for the heart, were first tested
on humans and only later was it established that they also function if
they are implanted in animals."

The correction of the congenital heart anomaly called Tetrology of
Fallot (TOF) is frequently cited to justify spending money on more
animal research. TOF is one of the causes of "blue babies." A Blue
baby is one who does not have enough oxygen in the blood to provide
the healthy pink color to the skin. The blood is bypassing the lungs,
thus not receiving the oxygen. A malformation of the heart usually,
does not allow blood to circulate normally. The whole story can be
found in Dr. Taussig's memoirs and textbooks of medical history.
Cardiologist Helen Taussig suggested a surgical correction of the
problem to Alfred Blalock, a surgeon. She based her suggestion on
autopsy findings on the affected infants. 

Dr. Blalock attempted the procedure on dogs with poor results. Instead
of using animals with heart defects they cut lung tissue out of dogs
in an attempt to mimic the naturally occurring disease. Tetrology of
Fallot does occur in dogs, especially Keeshonds, but it is rare. So
the animal model was fundamentally flawed from the start. Dr.
Blalock's experience led him to state to Dr. Taussig, "The experiments
are suggestive but not very conclusive. But if you are convinced the
operation will work, I am convinced I know how to do it." 

Dr. Blalock had in fact not been successful performing the procedure
in dogs. He thought it could be done in humans based on Dr. Taussig's
experience and based on his surgical experience. Contrast his
statement with this statement from those promoting animal research,
"The (animal) experiments were so successful and confirmed Dr.
Taussig's theory so completely that Blalock felt he could venture to
operate on one of the poor children."(Hugo Glaser, The Miracle of
Heart Surgery, London, Lutterworth Press, 1961, p59).

This is where the statement, "Which would you rather save one blue
baby or one brown dog?" comes from. It is not based on historical fact
but rather someone's wishful thinking. Sloppy thinking such as
exemplified by the above lead one surgeon to state,"The abolition of
vivisection would in no way halt medical progress, just the opposite
is the case. All the sound medical knowledge of today stems from
observations carried out on human beings. No surgeon can gain least
knowledge from experiments on animals, and all the great surgeons of
the past and of the present day are in agreement on that." 

The development of the artificial heart valve, which has helped tens
of thousands of people was delayed secondary to research in dogs. Dogs
proved to be very good at making blood clots around the new valve. The
blood clots could lead to stoke or pulmonary embolism or other
complications in humans. Therefore, researchers would not release it
to humans. Many people died as a result of the new valves not being
available. The entire reason the valves were not released was based on
a myth. Dogs and humans do not clot in the same way. Humans did not
have the same problem with the valves and many people have the
artificial valves implanted each year. Some valves do require
anti-coagulants to avoid the complications, but this was not the
pointed out by the dog experiments.

What would happen if we did indeed abolish surgical training and
experimentation on animals? Researchers at Tulane University have at
least partially addressed this question. They examined complication
rates for the then relatively new procedure of laparoscopic
cholecystectomy. They compared the complication rate of those who
practiced on animals with those who did not. They found no difference
between the groups. Another area where animals are routinely used is
in training physicians to handle major trauma. Advanced Trauma Life
Support (ATLS) courses are costly in part because of the cost of the
animals. One hospital in Georgia decreased cost by 50% by eliminating
dogs from the course. Human cadavers were used instead. The
participants evaluated the course as equal or better than courses
using dogs. 

More recent studies have revealed the physicians taking ATLS prefer
human cadavers to animals. This is not surprising. If you operate on
humans it only makes sense to learn on cadavers. Dr. Salvatore Rocca
Rossetti, surgeon and Professor of Urology at the University of Turin,
Italy, states that, "Nobody has become a surgeon because of having
operated on animals. He has only learnt wrongly through animals. I
have been able to see this over my many decades as a surgeon, also as
a Director of hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of
operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal."

Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany agrees:
"The claim, frequently heard, that animal experimentation is vital for
the training of surgeons and that practice on living animals is
necessary to gain manual and operating skills cannot be left
unchallenged. A surgeon acquires his basic knowledge by observing and
then assisting his teacher. In time, according to his experience,
ability and manual dexterity he participates in supervised operating
duties, until the surgeon responsible for his training, decides as to
when he can start operating on his own. Specialized knowledge of
microsurgery is gained in the same way, just as working at the
surgical microscope does not call for operating on animals." 

In England, surgeons have not been allowed to practice surgery on
animals since 1876.
_______________________________________________________________________




Medication Testing in Animals

Where would we be without the ability to test new medication on
animals. Would we all become guinea pigs? Aren't animals used to see
if medications are safe? Aren't animals used to figure out the correct
dose to give humans? What about the bad side effects? Doesn't animal
testing find out which medications are dangerous? 

Between 1976 and 1985, 209 new drugs were approved for use in the
United States (US) after extensive animal testing. Of these 209, 198
were followed for side effects and effectiveness by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). (Sometimes a drug will be approved but never
make it to market secondary to the fact that the drug company ceases
to believe it can make money off the product. Sometimes these drugs
are referred to as "orphan drugs.") 102 of the 198 new medications or
52% were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted
side effects. These side effects included complications like lethal
dysrhythmias (when the heart beats without a regular rhythm, thus
severely limiting the amount of blood it can pump), heart attacks,
kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest (when one stops breathing
and subsequently the heart stops beating as well), liver failure,
stroke and many more. All these medications had been tested on
animals. What happened?

In 1933, a physician stated, "...the results of drug experiments upon
animals are, as far as their application to man is concerned,
absolutely useless and even misleading." 

And in 1967, Dr. Arnold D. Welch, Department of Pharmacology, Yale
University School of Medicine, stated, "In part because of possible
major differences in responses to drugs in animals and man, the
knowledge gained from studies in animals is often not pertinent to
human beings, will almost certainly be inadequate, and may
even be misleading." 

Other scientists are now going on record stating that there is only a
5-25% correlation between animals results and human results. This is
less accurate than tossing a coin. At least with tossing a coin you
have a 50% chance of success. 

What about predicting the correct dose of a drug for humans?
The dose of a medication is determined in part on how the drug is
metabolized. A study of 23 chemicals revealed only 4 were metabolized
the same way in humans and rats. These differences prompted one
scientist to state,  "It seems incredible that the rat is the model so
heavily relied upon when predicting human responses to
toxic/carcinogenic agents. Whether the concern is absorption, tissue
distribution, biliary excretion, intestinal flora,
enterohepatic circulation, and others, there are profound differences
between the values of the rat and those of humans."

So animals can not accurately predict dose, side effects or toxicity
to humans. What about all those drugs that did not pass animal tests?
Aren't we much safer because the really bad drugs were caught early?
Dr. Kurt Fickentscher of the Pharmacological Institute of the
University of Bonn, Germany, in Diagnosen, stated in March 1980,
"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the
safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
Digitalis, like many medications, was discovered without animal use.
It is derived from plants and has been used by herbalists for
centuries. However, clinical trials of the drug were delayed secondary
to the high blood pressure it caused in animals. Digoxin, an analogue
of digitalis has saved countless lives. How many more could it have
saved had digitalis been released sooner?

FK 506 - a chemotherapeutic agent was almost shelved before proceeding
to clinical trials. Researchers stated, "Animal toxicity was too
severe to proceed to clinical trial". They suggested that the
combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin may prove more useful. In fact,
just the opposite was to be true in humans.  

Perhaps the most useful medication that was almost lost secondary to
animal experimentation was penicillin. Flemming saw penicillin kill
bacteria in petri dish and tested it on rabbits. It did not work.
Rabbits excrete penicillin in their urine. The drug does not get a
chance to work prior to being eliminated from the body. Flemming then
discarded the drug thinking it to be useless as a systemic medication.
He later had a very sick patient and since he had nothing else to try,
gave the penicillin. The rest, as they say is history. 

It is good thing his initial tests were not on guinea pigs or
hamsters, it kills them. He might have thrown the drug away entirely
instead of setting it aside for possible topical use. His experience
prompted him to state, "How fortunate we didn't have these animal
tests in the 1940's, for penicillin would probably never been granted
a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never
have been realized". Dr. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner who is
credited with co-discovering penicillin, has stated: "Mice were used
in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a
lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not
the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have
said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have
proceeded to try and overcome the difficulties of producing the
substance for trial in man." 

An oft repeated horror story of how animal testing could have saved
patients is the story of the thalidomide disaster which occurred in
the late 1950s and early 1960s. In fact just the opposite is true.
Thalidomide was originally intended to decrease severe morning
sickness associated with pregnancy. Unfortunately, it also caused a
condition known as phocomelia; a congenital absence of the limbs.
Thalidomide was tested on animals both before and after the side
effects were known. The severe birth defects were not only not
predicted by animal tests before the disaster, but even
when the scientists knew what they were looking for, only one
particular breed of rabbit and a few primates were found to reproduce
the deformities. 

This is usually the story with animal experiments. Eventually
you can find an animal which predicts the side effect, but only after
you know what the side effect is and have looked for it in many
different species of animals. That is essentially the point of those
who oppose animal research. Look long enough and hard enough and you
will find some animal somewhere which does react to medication the way
humans do. Only problem is, in order to know if the side effect in
question is accurately predicted by the mouse or dog, or cat or
woodchuck or whatever, you must have already tested the medication in
humans. 

With some medications the White New Zealand rabbit will predict
problems accurately. With others the mouse may be predictive. But if
we only know in retrospect, why perform the test? That's like having
the answer to the test questions before the teacher gives the exam.
Real life doesn't work that way. You are not getting new data, but
merely "validating" data already known to be true from humans. Why
does science feel they must "validate" data on animals to prove that
the effects already observed in humans really occurred? 

Mice and rats were tested and not effected by thalidomide. The White
New Zealand rabbit was effected only at a dose of 25 times that given
to humans. Monkeys were effected at 10 times the normal dose. Two
scientists summarized the thalidomide testing as follows:

"An unexpected finding was that the mouse and rat were resistant, the
rabbit and hamster variably responsive, and certain strains of
primates were sensitive to thalidomide developmental toxicity.
Different strains of the same species of animals were also found to
have highly variable sensitivity to thalidomide. Factors such as
differences in absorption, distribution, biotransformation, and
placental transfer have been ruled out as causes of the variability in
species and strain sensitivity."

There is law in medicine which states that any substance can cause
birth defects if given to the right species in the right dose at the
right time in development. That is certainly true with thalidomide.
One scientist stated, "In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains
of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of
hamsters, 8 species of primates and in other such varied species as
cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide
has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only
occasionally." 

He goes on to state:

"It is the actual results of teratogenicity testing in primates which
have been most disappointing in consideration of these animals'
possible use as a predictive model. While some nine subhuman primates
(all but the bush baby) have demonstrated the characteristic limb
defects observed in humans when administered thalidomide, the results
with 83 other agents with which primates have been tested are less
than perfect. 

Of the 15 listed putative human teratogens tested in non-human
primates, only eight were also teratogenic in one or more of the
various speciesThe data with respect to "suspect" or "likely"
teratogens in humans under certain circumstances were equally
divergent. Three of the eight suspect teratogens were also not
suspect in monkeys or did not induce some developmental toxicity. 
Over 10,000 children were crippled as a result of thalidomide. This
tragedy is made worse by the fact that a physician observed the link
between thalidomide and birth defects and sounded an alarm. He was
ignored because of the animal experiments which had proven that the
medication was safe. Since the laboratory was and is considered the
true sanctuary of medicine, many individuals were effected by
thalidomide who did not need to be. 

Another scientist states, "There is at present no hard evidence to
show the value of more extensive and more prolonged laboratory testing
as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other
words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is
uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of
medicines which require these tests does so largely as an act of faith
rather than on hard scientific grounds. With thalidomide, for example,
it is only possible to produce specific deformities in a very small
number of species of animals. In this particular case therefore, it is
unlikely that specific tests in pregnant animals would have given the
necessary warning: the right species would probably never have been
used. Even more striking, the practolol adverse reactions have not
been reproducible in any species except man." 

Despite what those who earn their livelihood from experimenting on
animals say, animal tests would not have prevented the thalidomide
disaster and in fact delayed the acknowledgment of it's severe side
effects.
______________________________________________________________________




Curing and Preventing Cancer

Experts state that between 60% and 90% of all cancer can be prevented!
Why are we spending so much money on animal research and so little on
prevention. Didn't Benjamin Franklin say, "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure"? What is the track record on animal research
and cancer? We have spent billions and billions of dollars on animal
research for cancer. What have we received for our money?

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud,
and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their
duties to the people who support them." Linus Pauling, Ph.D., two time
Nobel Prize winner, in Outrage, Oct/Nov 1986

Cancer research on animals has been unproductive because of the
differences between humans and animals. The cancers which grow in
animals are different from the cancers which afflict humans. And, the
physiology of humans is different from the physiology of animals.
Animals are not just funny looking people.

One premise of testing new anti-cancer medications, and testing
chemicals to see if they cause cancer on animals is the fallacious
assumption that the animal is similar to humans in terms of physiology
and pharmacological responses. Consider the following: Of 20 compounds
known not to cause cancer in humans, 19 did cause cancer in animals.
On the other hand of 19 compounds known to cause cancer in humans only
7 caused cancer in mice and rats.  Indeed one cancer researcher has
stated that "...the lifetime feeding study in mice and rats appears to
have less than a 50% probability of finding known human carcinogens...
we would have been better off to toss a coin." 

Artificially induced tumors differ from naturally occurring human
tumors. One scientist has stated in a leading cancer journal,
"It is in fact hard to find a single, common solid neoplasm [cancer]
where management and expectation of cure has been markedly affected by
animal research. Most human cancers differ from the artificially
produced animal model...." 

Dr. Sabin, developer of the polio vaccine, stated:

"The cancer research bodies cause pain and suffering to hundreds of
thousands of animal every year by inducing in the animals, by chemical
or by irradiation, large cancerous growths in their bodies and in
their limbs. Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not
help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering
from it." 

According to Dr. J.C. Bailar III, the chief administrator of the War
on Cancer during the Nixon administration, "Age-adjusted mortality
rates (from cancer) have shown a slow and steady increase over several
decades and there is no evidence of a recent downward trend." 

One illustration of the futility of animal research for curing cancer
is that between 1970 and 1985 over half a million compounds were
tested for anti-cancer properties on animals. Only twenty-four proved
to have any anti-cancer activity. Of the twenty-four, twelve went on
to have a substantial role in chemotherapy. All twelve of these were
analogues or chemical variations of known chemotherapeutic agents. In
other words, the fact that these chemicals could be used to fight
cancer had already been predicted by their chemical structure. Nothing
new was learned from the 15 years of study and billions of dollars. 

Dr. Irwin Bross in testimony in 1981 before the US Congress stated,
"the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human
cancer is widely heralded as a triumph due to the use of animal
models. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support
these claims. Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often
delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never
produced a single substantial advance in either the prevention or
treatment of human cancer." 

The American Cancer Society's' former president, Marvin Pollard has
stated "We have relied too heavily on animal testing, and we believe
it too strongly. Now, I think we are commencing to realize that what
goes on in an animal may not necessarily be applicable to humans." 

The Linus Pauling Institute has been using them since at least 1985.
John Leavitt of the Institute stated, "The Pauling Institute decided
to explore the mechanism of carcinogenesis with an emphasis on human
cells rather than on the cells of animals. Only recently have we begun
to realize the significance of this intuitive premise that human
cancer, while fundamentally the same as rodent cancer, may have
critical mechanistic differences which may in turn require different,
uniquely human approaches to cancer eradication." 

The real progress in cancer research has come through studying
populations of people and linking lifestyle to disease. This branch of
science is called epidemiology. Through population studies the link
between smoking and lung cancer was confirmed. Animal experiments
were notorious for failing to demonstrate this link. The tobacco
industry used this to their advantage for years claiming that smoking
did not cause lung cancer. One researcher stated in a leading medical
journal in 1957 that, "The failure of many investigators to induce
experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during fifty years
of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung
cancer theory." 

This statement was made despite the fact that 27 studies on humans had
been done establishing the link between smoking and cancer. Smoking
related cancer is still difficult to reproduce in lab animals.
In 1988 writing in the book Perspectives in Basic and Applied
Toxicology Dr. Utidjian stated, "Surely not even the most zealous
toxicologist would deny that epidemiology, and epidemiology alone, has
indicted and incriminated the cigarette as a potent carcinogenic
agent, or would claim that experimental animal toxicology could ever
have done the job with the same definition." 

Epidemiology has linked a high fat diet (the typical American diet)
with many cancers. In vitro research and epidemiology have led to the
knowledge to prevent and the few cures available for cancer. Educating
the public about the risk factors including fat, smoking and alcohol
would do far more to decrease cancer deaths than animal research,
which so far has done nothing but consume our resources.


_______________________________________________________________________




Do Animals Feel Pain?

The philosopher, Descartes thought that animals did not feel pain and
that attitude has prevailed throughout the ensuing decades. Today we
know that all vertebrates, animals with a backbone, have the same
nerves that humans have. In other words, they feel pain. While this
may seem like a silly statement to anyone who has ever stepped on a
cat's tail or accidentally tripped over their dog, many people
actually believe animals are like clocks, without feeling. When you
stump your toe on the bedpost, certain nerves in your toe are
stimulated. These nerves are called nocioceptors. That is a big word
meaning nerves that feel pain. These nerves go to the spinal cord and
on up to the brain where you experience the sensation of pain. It is
of course, much more complicated than that.

Many chemicals are released both at the site of injury and in the
nerves. But the general anatomy and physiology of all vertebrated is
essentially the same with regards to how vertebrates feel pain. 

There are differences too. Notice how some people experience pain with
some things that others do not. The amount and type of chemicals in
the body influence this. No two people are exactly the same and no two
animals are exactly the same either. Just because you do not
experience pain exactly like your best friend does not mean that one
of you does not feel pain. You both do, only differently. The same is
true of animals. 

Animal experimentation is very painful. Consider the following. An
animal is placed in a highly artificial environment. Rats are crammed
into cages, dogs are not allowed to socialize or exercise, and cats
are frequently not allowed to groom. In addition to being separated
from their mothers and family they do not live, what is for them a
normal life. The laboratory is very stressful. Animals can sense death
and their compatriots are dying all around them.

The actual experiments are really torture. Did you know that
scientists are not required to anesthetize the animals prior to
operating on them? If they think the results of the experiment will be
effected by the anesthesia, then they simply do not have to give
anesthesia to the animal. Animals are paralyzed with drugs while being
fully conscious. That is like being wide awake but unable to move,
blink your eyes or breathe. Can you imagine the horror? Animal are cut
open, have wires placed in their brains, are shocked and have acid
poured on them, all without anesthesia. Do you think that is
right?Animals experience pain and have interests just like us.
What gives us the right to torture them?

________________________________________________________________________




AIDS Research with Animals

According to some researchers, "The course of AIDS in primates is
virtually identical to that of humans."(Bertha Madras of the New
England Regional Primate Center in testimony before The House of
Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies. Washington DC, US Government
Printing Office, 1990, p1481-1489) But is this true? AIDS is one of
the most frightening and deadly illnesses of modern time. Millions
have died and millions more will die. What have the animal models of
AIDS contributed to our knowledge and treatment of this devastating
disease?

Epidemiological research and in vitro research led to the discovery of
the virus and the mode of transmission. Mary Guinan of the CDC first
stated that the new disease must be transmitted via blood or other
bodily fluids. Drs. Montagnier and Gallo both conducted in vitro
research to isolate the virus. AZT, one of the first medications used
to treat AIDS was originally an anti-cancer drug. The efficacy of AZT
was first demonstrated in 1985 using test tube research. It went
directly to clinical trials without going through the usual animal
tests. One reason for this was that it was so well known from it's use
in cancer. AZT, 3TC, protease inhibitors, ddI, ddC, d4T, Indinavir,
Ritonavir, Saquinavir, Nevirapine and hydroxyurea were all developed
from in vitro or test tube methods. In some instances, the
scientists were studying white blood cells and had an idea for another
type of attack against AIDS. 

Scientists without a vested interest in animal experimentation have
stated, "that there is no predictive animal model for HIV infection in
humans. Cell cultures offered the first treatment and the recent
advances such as combination drug therapy were derived clinically.
Test tube research and human epidemiological studies have been
responsible for the great breakthroughs in AIDS so far. 

In 1988, scientists stated, "To date, adequate animal models have not
been developed for HIV-related research. An appropriate model is one
in which the animal can be infected with HIV and can develop diseases
similar to that produced by HIV infection in humans. Difficulties with
animal models persist. Chimpanzees for example, can be infected with
HIV, but, to date, have not developed AIDS.The lack of appropriate
animal models for HIV research makes the application of animal
research to humans uncertain."
(Presidential Commission: Report of the Presidential Commission on the
human immunodeficiency virus epidemic. Washington DC, Government
Printing Office, 1988, pp39-47) 

Many other scientists have acknowledged the fact that animals do not
suffer from AIDS -like illnesses the same way humans do. Despite this
knowledge primates and other animals have been experimented on at
great cost to the taxpayer. The results have been disappointing at
best. The strain of HIV used to try and infect chimps is different
from the naturally occurring virus. This has resulted in researchers
thinking advances had been made on numerous occasions, when in fact
the results were not applicable to humans. For example, researchers
thought HIV was slowly progressive with long latency periods. In
humans however, it progressed rapidly with short latency periods. 

The journal Science stated,"a molecular clone of the prototype SAIDS
virushas no notable similarity in either genetic organization or
sequence to the human AIDS retrovirus."

And this, also from the journal Science,"[Drs.] Tsai and Sarver are
quick to point out, however, that there is a big leap from monkeys to
humans: For starters, HIV-1, the main AIDS virus that infects humans,
differs significantly from SIV, the simian relative that was used in
the tests."

Researchers can study SAIDS, but it is not like AIDS. They can study
monkeys infected with HIV but the monkeys do not respond the way
humans respond. Another difference is the way the disease is
transmitted from mother to infant. In humans, the disease is
transmitted in-utero. SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) in rhesus
monkeys can be passed in breast milk but not in-utero. Another reason
that animal experiments don't offer hope for HIV infected patients is
that HIV differs from SIV at the very important hypervariable region.
This is an area of the actual molecule of the virus. It is difficult
to use the monkey as a vaccine model since monkeys do not produce
antibodies against the V-3 loop portion of a glycoprotein on
the outer covering, humans do. Granted, perhaps animals can be
vaccinated against immunodeficiency viruses, but that does not mean
the vaccine will be anything like what is needed for HIV. We know we
can vaccinate against viruses.

As of this writing, probably the biggest news item related to the
treatment of AIDS is the failed baboon bone marrow transplant on
patient Jeff Getty. Why was this operation performed? Are there any
risks to the patient or community with this type of procedure? Why was
this procedure performed? The FDA conducted hearings on whether or not
to approve the procedure. The committee however was composed of voting
members, some of whom also had a vested interest either in the
procedure or in xenotransplants. 

The thought of transplanting a baboons bone marrow into a human filled
many infectious disease experts with fear. Dr. John Coffin stated
that,  "infection is a virtually inevitable consequence" of
xenotransplantation.  He added that, "this is a very serious worry
because the animals that have been chosen for doing this, the baboon
and pig, are both known to carry endogenous viruses, replication
competent, but very poorly studied, that are capable of infecting
human cells." 

Dr. Louisa Chapman of the CDC was at the hearing and explained at
length that there was great danger involved in the procedure. She
described previous examples of non-human viral diseases being
transmitted from primates to humans. She stated, "baboon endogenous
retroviral proviral DNA can be detected in tissues of all baboon
species, as well as those of many other monkeys." These "retroviruses
may have pathogenic potential under conditions associated with
xenotransplantation." She compared this to the, "periodic emergence of
new pandemic influenza strains," which is thought "to occur by a
process of re-assortment between human and animal influenza viruses." 

In other words, one of the viruses in the baboon hitherto unknown to
humans may mutate in a human recipient and become the next AIDS or
Ebola. Outbreak the movie may be Outbreak the reality. Indeed some
scientists believe that the first case of HIV occurred secondary to a
contaminated polio vaccine. Vaccines were, and to a lesser extent,
still are sometimes made with animal products. There are reported
cases of death and sickness secondary to the vaccine being
contaminated with animal infections. Whether or not HIV did in fact
originate with a contaminated polio vaccine is irrelevant at this
point in time. What is relevant is the fact that scientists
acknowledge that it is possible that HIV could have entered the human
species that way.  

Even scientists at the University of Pittsburgh had reservations about
the procedure. Dr. Marion Michaels stated before the FDA committee, 
"the donor organ, the tissue or the accompanying hematopoietic cells
can also be a source of infection. Most often these infections are
latent organisms and are often clinically silent in the donor." 

The most outspoken critic may be Dr. Jonathan Allen from the
institution which supplies the baboons. As an expert on primate
viruses he stated that,  " any agent or pathogen that a baboon may
harbor is also going to be more likely to be transmitted to humans."
He is concerned that the same type of mutations that Dr. Chapman
warned the committee about. He went on to state that it is, 
"well established that most new emerging human infectious diseases
have their origins in other species." He also explained to the
committee that a new virus may not be detectable by current means. The
safety issue involved in xenotransplantation does not end with the
patient. 

According to these scientists, and others, the entire population may
be at risk. Is the benefit worth the risk? Dr. Allen concluded
that,"to proceed with this kind of procedure in the face of knowing
how AIDS is transmitted, is to repeat the past because none of the
types of screening processes, none of the registries, none of the
archiving of samples, none of the surveillance, none of that would
pick-up on an AIDS like virus. If you proceed with this, you
need to understand there is going to be a risk that you are not going
to eliminate the risk of transmitting another virus that could be as
deadly as the AIDS virus." 

These experiments "constitute a threat to the general public health
and not merely a complication of the risk/benefit calculation for the
individual xenogenic tissue recipientDo not use non-human primates as
organ donors if you don't want to infect the human population." 

So why did the FDA approve the procedure? In addition to having voting
members who had vested interests in the field, one member of the
committee admitted that,"We were heavily influenced by emotional pleas
on the part of the family of the recipient."The risk to other humans
from xenotransplantation is real. Many scientists and physicians have
stated that xenotransplants are not in the best interest of the public
and have encouraged caution in dealing with this potentially
catastrophic situation. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the
xenotransplantation and AIDS is the fact that some scientists believe
that AIDS originally crossed the species barrier and mutated as a
result of using monkey tissue in the development of the polio vaccine.

______________________________________________________________________




Heart Disease

The leading cause of death in the USA is heart disease. Roughly, one
third of patients do not survive their first heart attack. We are all
aware of the risk hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) has for
coronary artery disease (CAD). Other risk factors include
hypertension, cigarette smoking, diabetes, a family history of the
disease, lack of exercise, obesity and stress. The risk between CAD
and cholesterol levels was determined by clinical studies, not animal
research. In fact, coronary artery disease has been quite difficult to
induce in laboratory animals. All of the risk factors listed were
determined from human research not animal experiments.

Indeed, epidemiology and in vitro research have been the only way to
study heart disease since scientists have not been able to reproduce
CAD in animals. Rabbits have been studied for CAD but there are major
differences between the way the humans and rabbits manifest the
disease. 

First and most importantly, rabbits don't suffer from CAD naturally.
In order to study CAD in rabbits, researchers must artificially induce
the disease in the rabbit. They can make the arteries to the heart
clog, but again not like humans. The clogs, or plaques, in humans tend
to break off. Hence heart attacks. Heart attacks can also be caused by
frank obstruction of blood flow. The plaques that researchers induce
in rabbits do not ulcerate and break off like they do in humans. 

Rabbits also differ in their response to diet. Rabbits with induced
diabetes that are fed a high cholesterol diet, develop less CAD. As
everyone knows, a human patient with diabetes who eats a high
cholesterol diet is increasing his risk of CAD.

No animal model reproduces the CAD in humans. Baboons, a favorite of
researchers, have CAD induced over a course of hours, not years as in
humans. The vessels which the researchers are trying to induce disease
in, are normal. In humans, CAD is not just an isolated clog. The
entire vessel is diseased. Some scientists are now suggesting it is
actually the vessel which causes CAD, in addition to the fat content
of the blood. The human clog is composed of blood, fat, and other
substances. The baboon clog is only blood. There are profound
differences between what blood does to the artery and what an actual
plaque does. 

Rats are not suitable models secondary to the fact that rats
metabolize fats differently from humans. A high fat content in the
diet leads to higher cholesterol levels in humans and thus a higher
risk of CAD. This difference has led researchers to state, "the
rat is not an appropriate human model for studies involving lipids."
(Nutrition and Cancer, 1983;4(4):285-291) 

Other scientists have stated, "It is not possible to extrapolate
directly from rat to human studies because of differences in plasma
lipoprotein [cholesterol and triglycerides] metabolism between the
species." 

The great apes have also been unsuccessfully used to study CAD. In
1963, scientists stated, "The indications of current research findings
that this [atherosclerosis] may be essentially a nutritional disease
raise questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered in the
laboratory. In fact, atherosclerosis is one of several areas in which
research has reached the practical limits of laboratory investigation
with the present state of our knowledge and techniques. The road to
further progress now seems to lie in large-scale and long-range
epidemiological studies utilizing large population groups as the basic
unit of study." (Shannon JA. Testimony before the Department of Labor
and Health, Education , and Welfare Appropriations, Subcommittee of
the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Eighty-sixth
Congress, First Session. Washington. United States Government Printing
Office, 1959, p609) 

And indeed that is what happened. The Framingham and other
epidemiological studies have provided us with more information about
CAD than any other modality. The ability to diagnose heart disease has
been improved by the use of radionulide imaging of the heart and
stress testing of the heart. Patients frequently undergo a "stress
test" in order to evaluate how the blood flow to heart is compromised
in the face of CAD. By exercising and demanding that more blood go to
the heart, the lesions can be better visualized and more information
can be gained regarding prognosis. 

Various techniques have been developed in order to look into the
arteries of the heart. These tests can be used prior to sending a
patient to surgery in order to ascertain if the patient is at high
risk for a heart attack during surgery. They are frequently used in
order to diagnose heart disease or quantify how bad the disease is, in
order to properly medicate the patient. 

Other uses include measuring the degree of damage after a heart
attack, assessing the quality of the left ventricle, or monitoring for
damage that certain chemotherapeutic medications may cause to the
heart. If a patient is unable to walk on the treadmill, other options
are available. He or she may ride a stationary bicycle, or utilize a
hand squeezing devise. If unable to do this, certain medications may
be given which will cause the heart to beat faster and need more
oxygen thus increasing blood flow. Adenosine, dipyridamole, and other
medications are often used for this purpose. The use of radionuclides,
such as thallium can be used with or without the stress portion of the
test. The radionuclides provide the "film" for taking a picture of the
process. The thallium will look different depending on the disease
state. Certain "high tech" machines are used to "photograph" the
thallium and hence interpret the "picture". PET scans,
CAT scans and other devices are also used to evaluate the heart in a
similar fashion. 

A common method of evaluating ventricular function is with
a multiple gated acquisition analysis (MUGA). This technique allows
excellent evaluation of how well the heart is pumping blood, and does
not involve catheterizatio or other invasive procedures. These
techniques rely on technology, not animal research.

Another great step in the diagnosis and treatment of heart conditions
is Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE). Echocardiography has been
used for years and again was a discovery based on other than animal
research. But the technique was marred by the fact that the
cardiologist could not visualize the certain pats of the heart well.
Also the entire image was sub-optimal secondary to the transducer
being separated from the heart by skin, tissue and bone. With the
advent of catheters used for colonoscopy and
esophagealgastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and the advent of computer chip
technology, cardiologists are now able to place the TEE into a
patients esophagus and visualize the heart better than ever before.
There is less distance for the sound wave to travel and therefore much
less interference. TEE is used for many patients both in and out of
the operating room. 
_______________________________________________________________________




Cardiovascular Disease

High blood pressure or hypertension (HTN) affects approximately 50
million Americans. Approximately 30% of black people and 20% of white
individuals over the age of 18 years, living in the US, suffer from
HTN. As the population ages, HTN becomes more prevalent. Untreated HTN
can lead to stroke, CAD, kidney failure, eye damage and death. Over
the past twenty years more and better means of detecting HTN have
resulted in a decrease in CAD and other complications of the disease.

Clinical studies first led researchers to conclude that treating HTN
would decrease the incidence of stroke and MI. HTN can be controlled,
prevented or at least influenced by diet, cessation of smoking,
cessation of drinking alcoholic beverages, and exercise. The influence
of salt on blood pressure was learned from epidemiological research in
Great Britain. Restricting salt in the diet has let many Americans do
away with medications or at least take less. As Sassard states:

"The fact that there are so many models for hypertension and
atherosclerosis indicates that none of them is completely
satisfactoryIdentical observations can be made for the other severe
cardiovascular pathologies: coronary ischemia, cerebral ischemia,
cardiac insufficiency and rhythm disorders." 

The treatment for high blood pressure today consists of, among other
things, lifestyle changes and medications. Beta blockers are a type of
medication taken by many people to treat HTN, dysrhythmias, headaches
and other illnesses. Side effects of beta blockers include heart
failure, bronchospasm, fatigue and others. 

Note what Drs. said about the side effects in 1984, "Unwanted effects
such as bradycardia, hypertension, heart failure, bronchial spasm,
cold extremities and easy fatiguability are attributable to known
actions of beta antagonists. With the exception of bradycardia,
none of these was predicted from the initial animal studies." 

Interestingly, one of the first treatments for hypertension was a salt
restricted diet and rest. Dr. Kempner, in 1944 advised a high fiber,
low salt diet for his patients suffering from HTN. It worked. Imagine
that! Modify your diet and lifestyle and maybe you will be healthier.
In describing how the anti-hypertensive class of medications was
developed, Ray Gifford MD, a major contributor to knowledge in the
field states, "We had no protocols, no informed signed consents, no
statistical consultation. We just gave the drugs in any combination we
thought would reduce blood pressure and minimize side effects." 
Dr. Gifford goes on to state,"I can't help but wonder how long it
would take to get hydralazine or chlorothiazide on the market today?" 

Although people who earn their living by experimenting on animals will
try to convince you that all medical knowledge has been obtained via
calculated experiments on animals in a controlled laboratory
environment, this example is more in keeping with how actual
discoveries take place. There are many more such examples of where
medical knowledge actually came from. More than the respected medical
researchers of today would like you to know. 

The development of the anti-hypertensive medications was not only not
dependent upon animals, it would have been impossible to use animals.
Note what Dr. Gross states in the textbook The Scientific Basis of
Official Regulation of Drug Research and Development, "The
anti-hypertensive effect of diuretics does not occur in normotensive
animals and is difficult to obtain in hypertensive rats or dogs. 
Similar problems have to be faced with respect to the antihypertensive
action of beta-adrenoreceptor blocking drugs. The beneficial effect of
phentolamine, of prazosin, or of hydralazine in the treatment of heart
failure is hardly demonstrable in experimental animal models. The
predictive value of the results of numerous preclinical [animal] tests
or experimental models for the therapeutic uselessness of a drug is at
best uncertain, and the predictability will not be improved by simply
increasing the number of tests. One of the most widely studied
examples of a disease model is experimental hypertension, but for the
development of new drugs for the treatment of high blood pressure the
various types of experimental hypertension are dispensable tools" 

Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the USA. Most victims of
stroke live with the residual of the devastating attack. Paralysis,
loss of the understanding of speech, the inability to speak, inability
to walk or feel sensations, loss of memory and other terrible effects
are frequently the sequellae of stroke. Many animal experiments have
been conducted in order to elucidate knowledge which would lead to
stoke prevention or diminish the sequellae of stroke. HTN is a known
cause of stroke. 

As with other causes of stroke such as high cholesterol and smoking,
HTN was discovered to be a risk factor by epidemiological studies.
With early detection and proper medication, stroke can be prevented in
this population. Another factor leading to stroke is atherosclerotic
plaque deposited in the carotid arteries. This plaque can break loose
and go into the circulation of the brain, occluding blood flow and
causing a stroke. The ability to visualize the plaques is aided by
injecting dye into the arteries. This is called angiography. It was
invented based on clinical research. No lab animal has cerebral blood
supply comparable to man's. Most animals have greater cerebral
circulatory reserve. These differences profoundly affect the
implications of any research findings. 

Dr. Whisnant stated in 1958 that, "For the most part, these studies
have tended to lag behind clinical and pathologic-anatomic
investigation and too frequently have served as confirmatory work
after clinical impressions have been virtually accepted". It is
obvious at the outset, that investigations with laboratory animals can
not be directly related to human disease. No experimental animal has
an entirely comparable cerebrovascular supply to that of man" 

Dr. Neff of New England Medical Center stated in 1989 in Stroke,
"The repeated failures of laboratory proven stroke therapies in humans
can be due only to the inapplicability of animal models to human
cerebral vascular disease." 

Between 1978 and 1988, 25 drugs were shown to be effective in treating
stroke in animals. None of these worked in humans. Along the same
line, 22 drugs have been tested on animals and shown to be therapeutic
in spinal cord injury. Again, none worked in humans. Dr. Wiebers, of
the Mayo clinic, has summarized the contribution of animal research to
knowledge of stroke as follows:

"A large proportion of patients with ischemic stroke have underlying
multi-focal atherosclerosis which has developed over may years or
decades. Such individuals may have numerous associated risk factors
which predispose to this disease processSome attempts have been made
to model atherosclerosis in some animal species and to account for
hypertension and increasing age, but it is clear that these
circumstances do not reproduce the human situation. In fact, most
models of ischemic stroke are derived from young animals with no
underlying chronic disease or any genetic predisposition to such
diseases. Many variations, both within and between species, have been
recognized not only in the vascular anatomy, but also in
histopathologic response to identical ischemic insults and
treatment responses to cerebral schema. While the use of these
experimental [animal] models has provided much information about the
methods of producing and potentially treating cerebral schema and
infarction in specific animal species and experimental circumstances,
the relevance of most of these data to human conditions remains
dubiousalthough animal models of cerebral schema have been used
extensively to test new therapies in human stroke, their record for
identifying clinically effective drugs has been disappointing

"Among those [25] compounds subjected to clinical trials, none has
proven efficacious, nor have any of these agents come into general
clinical use. "Ultimately, however, the answers to many of our
questions regarding the underlying pathophysiology and treatment of
stroke do not lie with continued attempts to model the human situation
more perfectly in animals, but rather with the development of
techniques to enable the study of more basic metabolism,
pathophysiology, and anatomical imaging detail in living
humans." 

_______________________________________________________________________




Childhood Diseases

Nothing tugs at our heart strings like a sick child. When pressed to
produce facts regarding how animal research has enhanced our lives,
researchers will frequently speak of a sick child whose life was saved
as a result of animal research. The focus of the explanation will be
the emotional appeal of a sick child instead of actually relating
facts about the research. 

Tearful parents will be asked to share their opinion of animal
research. The almighty doctor who has just saved their child has told
them that the knowledge gained from research on animals was used to
save the child. In this emotional setting, we the viewer are
confronted by individuals much like ourselves, who assure us that
animal research is productive and necessary. 

What would any of us say in the same situation? The same thing, of
course. So what we are actually witnessing is the parents being
callously manipulated by the medical establishment. The distraught
parents are only repeating what their doctors have assured them is
true. What we do not witness or know, is what interest the doctor has
in animal research. Does she or he work for a university heavily
funded by the NIH funding research on animals? Has she or he ever
taken a critical look at animal research to see if what he was taught
was true? Or has she or he just repeated the age old line that all the
great medical advances have come from research on animals, and in fact
knows no better? 

Physicians are trained to be just that, physicians. They are not
trained to be medical historians. Most are told that animal
experiments made possible the treatments they administer and never
give it another thought. Working 20 hours per day during internship
and residency does not lend itself to critically evaluating the
system. The physicians and parents and patients who give testimonials
to animal research are not bad people, merely misinformed. 

Please don't misunderstand, there are people who are paid to mislead
the public: spokespersons for the tobacco industry, spokespersons
for the animal research industry, and those who pay their mortgage
from the grant money for animal experiments. But most physicians do
not have a vested interest and simply have never critically evaluated
the situation. Why should they? 

The Foundation for Biomedical Research has produced a video entitled
HOPE, which accounts the scenarios of numerous children saved as a
result of research on animals. It also portrays the death of one child
whose life could have been saved with more animal research. 

Concepts which rely on emotional appeal instead of fact should raise
suspicion in our minds. If the facts of the case are so persuasive and
overwhelming, why do they avoid facts, speak in sweeping generalities,
and assure us that the only way to save babies is through research on
animals? What has animal research done for sick children? Where have
the advances come from? Must we choose between children and animals or
must the researcher choose between what is expedient and what actually
works?

_______________________________________________________________________




Birth Defects

Nelsons Textbook of Pediatrics states, "Much of our knowledge of fetal
physiology has been obtained from animals and often is not directly
applicable to man." Birth defects continue to rise despite billions of
dollars in funding, both public and private. One cause of birth
defects is medications. 

Animals have been used for years to study medications and birth
defects. But do they accurately predict birth defects? Karnofsky's
Law states any medication or substance can be teratogenic (cause birth
defects) if given to the right species, at the right time in
development, in the right dose. Therefore, any medication can cause
birth defects in some creature. In 1963 the Lancet had the following
statement:

"In fact, the pitfall is that, having found no teratogenic effect in a
`sufficient number of different species of laboratory animals', one
can still not be sure of the effects on the human fetus, which is
always the ultimate purpose of investigation." 

No where is this more evident than in the Physicians Desk Reference
(PDR). The PDR is now an ubiquitous book both for the health
professional and the lay public. Have you ever looked in it to see if
a medication was safe to use in pregnancy? The answer is usually: 

"Reproduction studies have been performed in rats, rabbits and mice at
doses up to six times the human dose and have revealed no evidence of
impaired fertility or harm to fetus due to the drug. There are,
however, no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women.
Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human
response, the drug should not be used during pregnancy unless clearly
needed." (1993 PDR) 

Read through the PDR and see how many times this answer or a similar
one is written concerning a medication. Animal tests do not provide
answer. One example of this is the medication aspirin. Aspirin is safe
for pregnant women but causes birth defects in guinea pigs, monkeys,
rats, cats, dogs, and mice. Streptomycin, insulin and penicillin are
also safe in pregnant women while causing birth defects in animals. 

In 1978, Dr. Ralph Heywood stated,  "There is fundamental lack of
knowledge of pathogenesis of most malformations and, therefore
extrapolation to man has to be done with reservation and care.
Negative results cannot be used to predict that an agent will lack
teratogenic effect in manSurprisingly few compounds have
been shown to be teratogenic in man although a large number, including
aspirin, steroids, vitamin A and B, insulin and hydantoin, have been
shown teratogenic in rats." 

In 1984, Dr. Lasagna stated, "False positives and false negatives
abound. Once one has established that a drug is a teratogen for man,
it is usually possible to find, retrospectively, a suitable model. By
trying to predict human toxicity - which is after all what the
screening game is all about - is quite another matter. Cortisone is a
potent dysmorphogen in the rabbit and mouse, but does not produce
malformations in the rat. Carbutamide produces malformations in the
eyes of rats and mice, but facial and visceral malformations in
rabbits." 

The best example of this may be studies published in 1992. The FDA and
Council on Environmental Quality collected information yielding the
following: Predicting teratogenicity is best accomplished in the
following animal models: the mouse model was correct 85% of the time,
followed by the rat, 80%, rabbit 60%, hamster 45% and monkey 30%.
Sounds reasonable right? 

Unfortunately, when the same methods were used to predict substances
which do not cause birth defects the list basically reversed itself:
Mice and hamsters correctly predicted the results 35% of the time,
rats 50%, rabbits 70%, and monkeys 80%. When you average the chance of
predicting a teratogenic agent with the chance of predicting a
non teratogenic agent, the odds are about 50/50 with every species.
Flipping a coin will give a 50/50 chance. It does not cost any money
to flip a coin. 

Scientists have recognized this for years. In 1980, Dr. Yaffe stated:
"Experiments with animals have yielded considerable information
concerning the teratogenic effects of drugs. Unfortunately, these
experimental findings can not be extrapolated from species to species
or even from strain to strain within the same species, much less from
animals to humans."

Birth defects affect 150,000 babies per year. The medical cost of
caring for children with birth defects is over $1,000,000,000.00
annually. The CDC conducted a study between 1979 and 1989. They
followed 38 birth defects. During this time period, 27 of the birth
defects actually increased in the US population. 9 did not change and
only 2 decreased in incidence.

So what are scientists doing in order to curb this trend? The March of
Dimes (MOD) has donated over $2.5 million dollars for the following:
Scientists wanted to study the effects of cocaine on the learning of
babies exposed to cocaine. Instead of studying human babies who are
unfortunately born to mothers who consume cocaine, they decided to
study pregnant rats. 

Scientists have unfortunately too much data on this type of thing. But
the MOD decided to fund this project anyway. The scientists found that
maternal cocaine exposure influenced the learning of
female rats but not male rats. Interestingly another study found male
rats affected and not females. So much for studying learning in rats.
The effects of cocaine are well documented in human babies. It is a
totally preventable birth defect. 

As taxpayers we are often told that our only choice is the life of a
lab animal or the life of a child. In fact our choice is good science
or bad science. 

In the words of Dr. Anderson, "It needs to be recognized that, as well
as a personal tragedy for the families concerned, congenital
abnormalities now present a major public health problem. Evidence of
an effect in rats is not also evidence of an effect in humans." 

One common sense approach to prescribing medications to a pregnant
patient would be to give the drug only if absolutely necessary.
Although this is some what counter to our `take a pill' mentality, it
would save many babies from potentially dangerous medications. In the
book, Monitoring for Drug safety, Dr. Smithells states:

"In the absence of useful tests for teratogenicity clinicians have to
accept the responsibility for drug exposure in early pregnancy if
clinicians were more aware of the shortcomings of animal
teratogenicity testing they might take this responsibility more
seriously." 

Dr. Smithells continues, "The extensive animal reproductive studies to
which all new drugs are now subjected are more in the nature of public
relations exercise than a serious contribution to drug safety." 

And Dr. Hawkins, professor of Obstetrics, states,

"The great majority of perinatal toxicological studies seems to be
intended to convey medico-legal protection to the pharmaceutical
houses and political protection to the official regulatory bodies,
rather than produce information that might be of value in human
therapeutics." 

Dr. George Lin wrote in the journal In Vitro Toxicology,
"there is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results
to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species
difference."  1.3 million mothers receive inadequate pre-natal care
each year. Almost all, if not all, chemicals which cause birth defects
were shown to do so secondary to human epidemiology studies. The
effects of thalidomide, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, fetal hydantoin
syndrome, the effects of DES, the effects of mercury, spina bifida and
folic acid deficiency, fetal rubella syndrome, and others were all
identified with epidemiological studies, not animal experiments. 

The connection between maternal rubella and birth defects was found by
epidemiological studies in Australia in 1941. Cataracts in newborns
were found to increase in incidence after a rubella outbreak. The
effect of radiation on the fetus was discovered by epidemiological
studies between 1958 and 1962. The cancer causing effect of radiation
to the fetus may have gone undetected in animal studies.
 
The risk of too much oxygen in premature babies was discovered through
epidemiological studies. The risk of retinopathy of prematurity, which
causes blindness in newborns, can be diminished by giving only as
little oxygen as possible for as short period of time as possible to
premature babies. This does not always prevent blindness but it does
lessen the chances of developing it.