 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
Disclaimer • Welcome • Why Alternatives? • Alternative Cancer Therapy Guides www.healingcancernaturally.com On Conventional Medicine • On Modern Medicine • On Cancer Research |
|||
 |
Click
here for the complete list of Healing Cancer Naturally articles on Cancer Research, Toxicity Testing & Animal Experimentation: an Unholy Union? On Differences between species: animal experiment "Because [cancer] creates so much fear and distress, ... the stock response is that 'We must experiment on animals to find the cure for cancer'. However, after so much time, after so many animals have been slaughtered in 'cancer research', and after so much money has been given to cancer research, one naturally wonders why so many people continue to be afflicted by, and die from cancer. In fact this is hardly surprising in view of the animals used in this pseudo-research. When vivisectors induce cancer in laboratory animals (primarily mice and rats), the cancer-causing substance gives different results, not only from species to species, but also from one strain to another of the same species. For example:
The fact that there are acknowledgements that the end of cancer is nowhere in sight is further evidence of the fraud and futility of vivisection. Better Science: Limitations of Animal Tests LD50 TestThe traditional LD50 (lethal dose 50%) test forces animals to ingest chemicals to determine the approximate dose that results in the death of half the test animals. The animals are often force fed by a tube inserted down the esophagus into the stomach. This often causes severe discomfort, and in many cases, extreme and unrelenting pain. This crude method, using up to 100 animals per test, was introduced in 1927 by British pharmacologist J. W. Trevan. Since then, millions of animals have died excruciating deaths. The Interagency Research Animal Committee admits, “The LD50 tests have become controversial among toxicologists, animal welfare organizations, legislators and the public primarily due to the ethics of using a large number of animals and evaluating only mortality.” (National Institutes of Health Web site) Recently, the traditional LD50 test has come under scrutiny for its inhumane and unreliable results. In fact, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency discourage the use of the LD50 test. The Food and Drug Administration does not require its use and the National Toxicology Program does not use this test. These agencies and programs recommend alternative testing such as existing animal data, prior human experience, and/or the Limit test (a test that uses 10 animals in acute toxicity). The late Dr. Björn Ekwall of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden developed a replacement for the LD50 test that measured toxicity at a precision rate of 77% compared to the LD50 rate of 60%-65%. This test, which is more accurate than the animal models, is cruelty-free in that it uses donated human tissue, rather than animals. Dr. Ekwall stated that, “it would be irresponsible [for companies] not to use these…[alternative] tests to provide extra information for [the] protection of consumers.” (“There Is A Better Way; MEIC Finalizes a Replacement Method for the LD50 Test.” Boston, MA: New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 1999) The Draize TestIn 1944, John H. Draize, a scientist with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, developed an eye irritancy test in rabbits using an irritation scoring system subsequently called the Draize test. In this test, conscious rabbits are immobilized while chemicals are put directly into their eyes. They are often left in this unbearable situation for as long as a week. Technicians usually inspect the resulting injuries to the eyes after the exposure and subjectively determine an irritancy value for the substance. After the test the rabbits are usually killed and internal effects on the rabbits are examined. Corrosivity and Dermal Irritation TestsSkin corrosivity and dermal irritation tests are typically conducted by placing a chemical or chemical mixture on the skins of animals, usually rabbits. The skin is sometimes prepared by removing layers of skin to cause abrasions. These tests can result in skin corrosion and irritation, and often cause severe pain. The Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods, a committee consisting of representatives from 14 federal regulatory and research agencies, recommends using Corrositex, a non-animal test, instead of painful and subjective animal skin corrosivity tests. Alternatives to Animal TestsThere is no need for animal tests when superior non-animal tests exist. Corrositex is a non-animal based test that has been validated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)—a committee that consists of representatives from 14 federal regulatory and research agencies and programs. Corrositex, manufactured by InVitro International, is an in vitro test that determines chemical corrosivity. This test replaces the rabbit test of dermal corrosivity. In addition to Corrositex, other commonly used safety testing methods that do not use animals are:
“There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man,
due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” Alternative Scientific Tests are Often More Reliable than Animal TestsBecause animal systems are vastly different from human systems, animal experimentation can be very inaccurate and potentially dangerous to humans. For instance, experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Only after human studies correlated the two did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration label it as carcinogenic. The late Dr. Björn Ekwall of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden developed a replacement for the LD50 test (an animal test) that measured toxicity at a precision rate of 77% compared to the LD50 rate of 60%-65%. This test, which is more accurate than the animal models, is cruelty-free in that it uses donated human tissue, rather than animals. Dr. Ekwall stated that, “it would be irresponsible [for companies] not to use these…[alternative] tests to provide extra information for [the] protection of consumers.” (“There Is A Better Way; MEIC Finalizes a Replacement Method for the LD50 Test.” Boston, MA: New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 1999) “Generally, the variability of in vivo (animal) methods is greater than in vitro (non-animal) methods because of the wider degree of genetic and physiological diversity among whole animals.” (Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods: A Report of the ad hoc Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, March 1997) http://iccvam.niehs.nig.gov/process.htm “There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” (Dr. MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, 1990; XVII:24) Non-Animal Tests are More Cost Effective and PracticalSince companies are not currently required to document the number of rats, mice, and birds used in their experiments, it is difficult to do a cost comparison between animal and non-animal tests. However, we know that animal-based tests cost much more than just the cost of purchasing animals. Experiments can require cages, syringes, needles, specialized surgical equipment, food, watering devices, chemicals, stereotactic equipment, etc. – all contributing to significant cost increases. According to the Humane Society of the United States, “Animal tests not only lack formal validation and generate uncertainties associated with their extrapolation to humans, they also have practical problems. Some take years to complete and/or are very expensive. For example, the standard rodent bioassay for assessing carcinogenicity takes two years to conduct and costs more than a million dollars.” InVitro International’s Corrositex can provide a corrosivity determination in as little as three minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to six weeks. In addition, Corrositex costs approximately $200 whereas an animal test would cost $1,200 - $1,800, according to Christopher Byrnes in Our Animal Wards. Users of Corrositex can also save on shipping charges. According to InVitro International, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually in shipping costs for a single compound. Additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety. Cruelty-Free Products are More Environmentally FriendlyAnimal-tested products create unnecessary and harmful environmental waste and pollution. Millions of animals in toxicity testing are bred, used, and ultimately disposed of as pathogenic or hazardous waste. The process of manufacturing cruelty-free products, on the other hand, is not damaging in this regard since it does not use animals and therefore does not create such waste. The Ethical Science and Education Coalition’s (ESEC’s) research has not found any reported environmental hazards from using non-animal tests for safety. Since some of the non-animal tests use computers, the improper disposal of computer monitors could pose an environmental hazard owing to the lead, mercury, barium, cadmium and phosphorous in the cathode ray tube (CRT). However, last year Massachusetts became the first state to ban CRTs in public landfills and the proper disposal and recycling of CRTs should not pose a hazard. Additionally, since most companies would most likely own computers anyway, the use of computerized non-animal tests would not increase the number of computers. November 2001
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society, founded in 1895, works to expose and replace animal experiments in laboratories and classrooms with ethically and scientifically responsible modern research methods and to protect human beings who may be subjected to such experiments. NEAVS advocates for the protection of animals through public outreach efforts and publications, through education programs designed to promote greater compassion and respect for life, and through the support of legislative initiatives and litigation intended for the protection of animals. Among other things, NEAV provides information on Benefits of Non-Animal Tests | Xenotransplants | Animal Welfare Act | Limitations | Non-Animal Product Safety Test Alternatives, Cruelty-Free Living and Programs & Campaigns.
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer • Welcome • Why Alternatives ? • Alternative Cancer Therapy Guides
You can contribute to this site’s maintenance by giving as little as $10.00.
Dedicated to Joyful Healing USE OF THIS SITE SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THE DISCLAIMER. Paradise Now
|
|||
