by
KarenF
@ 2006-03-15 - 13:29:02
Watching Richard and Judy last night, I saw those young kids who had started the campaign for animal testing. What a shame, I thought to myself, that they have no clue about the science.
The biggest thing wrong with animal testing is that it doesn't work. Then this morning we get this news:
Six men in intensive care after drug trial goes wrong
The Guardian
Six men were in intensive care in a north London hospital last night after a pharmaceutical company's trial went wrong. Regulatory authorities have suspended the drug trial and are investigating in collaboration with the police.
The six were healthy volunteers, paid to take part in the earliest stage of human testing of a potential new medicine for inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and leukaemia. The volunteers were needed to establish whether there were any side effects or obvious problems with the drug before it was tested on people who have the conditions.
[snip]
The drug company, the German firm Te Genero, had submitted the results from animal safety tests, as it must do under the regulations, to get permission to run a trial on human beings. There had been no irregularities in the animal tests, the MHRA said. Investigators at the site will be looking at whether human error played a part in the incident, whether the product was contaminated or something went wrong with its storage.
[snip]
The unit is run by the US company Parexel which contracts with drug companies to recruit patients and run trials all over the world. In a statement last night it said the volunteers had "an unexpected drug reaction" and that its staff had given them the right dosage.
The media is keen to downplay how animal tests may not have revealed the side effects a human would suffer. Yet even without this example (which may be down to other factors), the evidence that animals are poor substitutes for humans ('mice are not little men') is conclusive.
Thalidomide is the obvious example, but there are others. Vioxx is great at treating heart disease in rats, but had to be withdrawn in 2004 because it caused heart attacks and strokes in humans. HRT lowers the risk of heart disease in monkeys, but increases it in human women. Oral contraceptives thin the blood of rats and dogs, but increase the risk of clotting in humans. Phenacetin (a painkiller) was harmless to animals, but caused kidney damage in humans. Isoprenaline (for asthma) caused 4000 deaths in the 1960s, but even after the fact, the same results could not be reproduced in animals. Oxychinol (used in anti-diarrhoea drugs) was harmless to rats, cats, beagles and rabbits. Only after it had caused blindness and paralysis in humans was it found that it mildly affected monkeys, hens, cocks and mice in the same way. Believe me, I could go on. And on, and on, and on.....
Animal trials would have meant that penicillin would never have reached the human market as it is lethal to guinea pigs. Who knows how many effective cancer drugs have been lost because they are lethal to mice?
People assume that 'scientists' are altruistic, caring people who just want to benefit the human race. They would surely never test on an animal if it wasn't necessary? Yeah, right. The reality is that a test on an animal results in a journal paper. A test on ten different species gives you ten papers. If want to be a famous scientist, test on animals. In addition, published papers attract further funding, so if you want to be a rich scientist, then test on animals.
Then there is legislation. Even ethical and well-informed scientists have to test on animals if they want their drugs to be legalised. Yet even with this legislation, adverse drug reactions kill 10,000 people in the UK each year. Animal testing isn't working.
The greatest advocates of animal testing try to paint themselves as the rational, 'scientific' ones, and anti-vivisectionists as emotional and irrational. But when the science tells us that animal testing isn't working, who is being irrational and unscientific?
Maybe one day we'll have pioneering scientists like those in the 17th and 18th centuries who experiment on themselves (though there were still plenty who'd rather experiment on other). Until then, I would suggest the following:
1) Never take part in a clinical trial unless you are happy to test untested drugs - for in effect that is what you are doing.
2) Never take a 'new' medicine unless you are happy that the risk of taking part in a mass study of the drug outweighs the risks associated with your disease - again, you are taking part in a mass experiment.
3) Always make sure that any side effects of any drugs you take get reported.
4) Next time you see a 'scientist' defending animal testing, bear in mind he's not likely to talk real science. Whatever his reasons for supporting testing on animals, they won't be scientific ones.
