# BUAV - Should animals be used for testing chemicals?



## testmg80 (Jul 28, 2008)

The UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has released guidance in the form of a leaflet to help REACH registrants minimize the use of animal testing as they prepare their final documents for submission this fall. Between 5,000 and 10,000 registrations expected by the November 30th, 2010 deadline. Each of those, without any attempt to minimize the number of animal tests, could require over 5000 animals according to HSE. The animal rights group, British Union of Anti-Vivisectionists (BUAV) predicts even more animals will be used, all told they say that over 75,000 chemicals may need new testing, which could mean 16-54 million animals over the next ten years. I think this number is highly unlikely, but nevertheless there will be significant animal testing proposed under REACH.

The guide recommends that wherever possible registrants should employ the basic principles of the "3Rs," that is, reduction, refinement and replacement, in order to reduce the number of animals used.

Besides some specific suggestions for particular endpoints, the guidance strongly suggests that registrants use the techniques listed in Annex XI of the REACH regulation, including:

- Use of all existing data: Search for previous studies done on the chemical

- Weight of evidence: Use information from multiple sources to avoid having to do new tests

- QSARs: Use computer modeling wherever validated and supportable for a particular chemical

- Grouping and Read Across: Maximize the value of data for similar chemicals that can be used to estimate the values for your chemical

- In Vitro: Use in vitro methods rather than methods that require animals; also use new Ex Vivo methods

- Waive Data Requirements if Not Technically Possible to Test: Some endpoints cannot be measured or are not appropriate to measure for certain substances

- Exposure-Based Waiving: Don't do animal testing in cases where there will be no exposure to humans or the environment

More specifics can be found in the UK guidance.

These considerations and the strong actions of the animal welfare organizations will most certainly need to be part of the "new TSCA" that is expected to be introduced shortly in the United States.


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

BUAV - Should animals be used for testing chemicals?

NO they shouldn't. Common sense says if you put something that isn't food in your body then it may have harmful side effects... Shame common sense is a rarity!


----------



## Jingle Bells (Feb 19, 2010)

Hi,

Simple answer is NO!

Jingle Bells


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

No! basing human medicine on animals is a successful fraud which contradicts common sense morality science truth human health the environment economics (for the majority not the elite minority). it is our duty to make the public aware of this by using a human health argument on this issue irrespective of our real feelings. People will never say 'save the rat' or any other animal while they believe that their lives or their kids lives may be saved...never


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

not that the animal rights argument is not valid ofcourse. combining the human health arguments with real film/evidence of what is happenning to animals is a complete argument. can be too much for people to take all at once though. some other great sites are www.navs.org Safer Medicines Campaign


----------



## Dirky47 (Oct 20, 2009)

Definitely a BIG NO in this question. Their life is worthy like humans. We should not risk their lives in testing chemicals for human goods.


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

it is not possible to reliably test any substance for human use in an animal, nor to cure any human disease. it is a legal device. "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons" and "the best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" dr ralph heywood, former scientific director of huntington life sicences. 100 years of failure and 30,000 diseases, over a billion animals and countless billions of dollars is enough. for real scientific methods which provide results applicable to humans see Safer Medicines Campaign www.navs.org for a start


----------



## Dirky47 (Oct 20, 2009)

noratmedicineforme said:


> it is not possible to reliably test any substance for human use in an animal, nor to cure any human disease. it is a legal device. "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons" and "the best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" dr ralph heywood, former scientific director of huntington life sicences. 100 years of failure and 30,000 diseases, over a billion animals and countless billions of dollars is enough. for real scientific methods which provide results applicable to humans see Safer Medicines Campaign www.navs.org for a start


I appreciated your detailed information here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2010)

I think animal testing should be banned FULLSTOP 

there are many murderers paedophiles and rapists ou there we should test on them instead!!


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

Thanks, while i share your sentiments about some criminals it is important to note that animal tests are not protecting us anyway. To quote dr moneim a fadali of doctors and lawyers for responsible medicine Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, DLRM "Animal experimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation." This is because a substance tested only in animals may still be harmful to humans.

DRUGS
"92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals" US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products" (36).

"A drug that is tested in animals will have a completely different effect in man. There are uncounted examples that could be cited." (Dr. med. Karlheinz Blank) Lord Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians said "No amount of animal testing can make a drug safe because humans react differently from animals." The report of the british pharmaceutical industries expert committee on drug toxicity said "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from the suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not mankind." Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humansIn reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Report of the Medical Research Council "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species." The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of huntington life sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."
So the USFDA, from drug co's own data on millions of animals over decades indicates that animals are incorrect in determining drug toxicity for humans 92% of the time. It is a legal device, not a scientific one.

Microdosing Pharmagene of Asterand are making genetically engineered drugs made for individuals as drug effects vary between humans

CANCER from Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research We are all victims of fraud in medical research

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). Dr A. Sabin, creator of the vaccine of his name said, "It is time to end cancer research on animals because it is not related to humans." And Dr Irwin Bross in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology "The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer." And Dr J F Brailsford "During the past fifty years scientists experimenting with thousands of animals have found 700 ways of causing cancer. But they had not discovered one way of curing the disease."

Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?
Cancer Is Increasing

Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1)ref # d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33

By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2)ref # Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1

and from safer med. campaign,
Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]

The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25]

Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.

you are certainly correct in saying that animal tests do not identify human carcionogens, even warnings on cigarette packets were delayed for 10 years due to animal 'tests' and 180 years for arsenic, also asbestos, literally thousands of human carcinogens. legal not scientific

Re insulin/diabetes as so little funds are put into human based research compared to animal we are unlikely to learn more about it.

i agree that animal res. isn't undertaken on a whim, getting published, qualifications, income and legal protection are major motives. even noble motives though do not lead to worthwhile results ie cures or protecting humans.

AIDS. from dr ray greek National Anti-Vivisection Society: AIDS And Nonhuman Primates
"According to the February 20, 2009 issue of Science:

SIVcpz, the chimpanzee virus that infected humans and triggered the AIDS epidemic, caused no harm to apes. But new data reveal that wild chimps infected with SIVcpz are more likely to die than are uninfected chimps . . . Captive chimps experimentally infected with HIV-1 typically suffer no harm, which led several researchers to propose that chimps had lived with SIVcpz for centuries and that their immune systems had evolved to coexist with the virus. But few SIVcpz- infected chimps in the wild were identified until about a decade ago . . .

We hear all the time about a new breakthrough using animals. What often goes unreported in the news is that a vast majority of these fail to translate to humans. Since HIV was isolated researchers have been experimenting with nonhuman primates seeking a vaccine or cure. Neither have been found; for humans. Many vaccines and preventive measures have been found for monkeys. Yet the NIH continues to fund experiments on a different species suffering from a different virus.

Animals are not going to be predictive for humans because:

1.
animals and humans have different genes;
2.
animals and humans control and express the same genes differently;
3.
animals and humans live in different external environments (notice that wild chimpanzees are apparently susceptible to SIVcpz while captive chimps were not);
4.
animals and humans live in different internal environments (even if we all had the same gene, how all those genes and proteins interact would be different);
5.
even if animals and humans suffered from exactly the same virus in exactly the same fashion it does not follow they will respond similarly to the same treatment because different biochemical pathways may be involved.

The above differences highlight why monkeys are no better predictors for humans than are our more distant relatives, mice. A percentage of genetic similarity does not imply predictive ability...."


----------



## serpentseye (Feb 20, 2010)

just as bad as testing on humans - they should have equal rights as us, they have just as much soul!!!


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

Yes, both animals and humans have rights and both are infringed (read "killed") by animal experiments. First the animals are poisoned, burned, blinded, mutilated, frozen, shot, irradiated etc etc etc then humans die of 30,000 diseases and rising largely from the hundreds of thousands of artificial substances which pass fraudulent animal 'tests' and from the animal based disease 'research' which never cures a human disease. It is great for business, nothing ever gets cured so the disease business (calling itself medical research) rolls on and the dollars keep coming in, the killers (drug/chem/tobacco co's and other polluters) get legal protection from the fraudulent animal 'tests' and we die.

Animal exp. lobby is desperate that an animal rights opposition is the only one the public knows about. When presented with a real science based opponent they dont have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2010)

noratmedicineforme said:


> Yes, both animals and humans have rights and both are infringed (read "killed") by animal experiments. First the animals are poisoned, burned, blinded, mutilated, frozen, shot, irradiated etc etc etc then humans die of 30,000 diseases and rising largely from the hundreds of thousands of artificial substances which pass fraudulent animal 'tests' and from the animal based disease 'research' which never cures a human disease. It is great for business, nothing ever gets cured so the disease business (calling itself medical research) rolls on and the dollars keep coming in, the killers (drug/chem/tobacco co's and other polluters) get legal protection from the fraudulent animal 'tests' and we die.
> 
> Animal exp. lobby is desperate that an animal rights opposition is the only one the public knows about. When presented with a real science based opponent they dont have a leg to stand on.


so true!


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

Thanks Shamen, you guys may already know this but even peter singer has been paid by the vivisectors. see Ajudem-nos!!!!!: The Peter Singer Story--The True 1

and not just any vivisectors, perhaps the biggest of them all, the ones who made it the enormous crime that it is, the rockefeller drug trust. Why would they do that? Because he consistently takes a soft line on vivisection, never challenging the claim that it benefits humans, never saying what is really happening overall to animals either. he even agreed with tipu aziz the oxford monkey brain prodder on a channel 4 'debate' that deep brain stimulation was his doing (via monkeys ofcourse), no mention of dr bernabid who actually discovered it safely in humans. now singers false philosophy (ie based on the false premise that says 'humans benefit from animal experiments, we must weigh up the benefit to humans against the suffering of animals', a utilitarian argument based on a false premise is 'taught' through the worlds universities...while they vivisect in nearby buildings ofcourse.

if you wondered why this lacklustre professor from australia was promoted through the worlds press while valid anti vivvers like hans ruesch were totally suppressed this may answer your question


----------

