Animal Experiments vs Human Patients

The following actions are available
 
EDM 373: Time to Hear the Scientific Evidence

PLEASE NOTE THIS EDM IS NOW CLOSED

  • Track Record of Success

    The medical Board which illustrates EDM 373 is the leading in its field and has a track record of success, defeating plans to build a primate laboratory at Cambridge University, in 2002, with an internationally precedent ruling on 'national interest, medical and scientific grounds'. Please visit this link to read more about this scientific decision against the primate lab at Cambridge University.

  • The PR company for the animal experimentation community 'Understanding Animal Research' has repeatedly and publicly agreed to participate in this debate called for by EDM 373, but they are now stonewalling the first event by refusing to submit the name of their main scientific speaker. By asking your MP to sign EDM 373 you are enabling him/her to accelerate the realization of this science hearing.

  • Animal experiments are still held in place by the pillars of false science

    Parliamentary EDM 373 enables MPs to call for medical evidence to be heard which is crucial for human patients and animals. This evidence entirely invalidates the use of all laboratory animals - currently 75% of the annual total of 4 million lab animals - who are subjected to experiments which falsely claim able to predict the responses of human patients. Recognizing this evidence would mean the immediate abandonment of all such experiments on human medical and scientific grounds. EDM 373 calls for this evidence to be heard at properly moderated, public scientific debates with conditions endorsed as "well set out and fair" by Britain's foremost human rights defence barrister Michael Mansfield QC.

  • What makes this opportunity unique?

    EDM 373's debates are unique because a panel of judges will be present who will include experts from the fields of clinical medicine, complexity/chaos theory, philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, clinical research, drug development and basic research. The debate conditions are designed to achieve a scientific result which can be submitted as evidence in a wider legal action as well as to government bodies, in order to change now demonstrably outdated laws that still require animals to be subjected to testing, which is now proven to fail humans.

  • EDM 373 highlights the new initiative Patients Campaigning For Cures

    Patients Campaigning For Cures (PCFC) is a new initiative run by patients for patients, and founded by twenty-seven year old multiple sclerosis patient Rebecca Groves. PCFC aims to speed up the arrival of effective treatments and cures by highlighting the harm caused by trying to apply the results of animal experiments to humans. Please visit this link to read fifty examples of the failure of animal experiments that has led to human deaths.

  • The wider scientific community agrees

    The Editor in Chief of The BMJ, Dr Fiona Godlee, published her Editor’s Choice in June 2014, titled How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research? [1] This article concluded by quoting from the paper it cited: “If research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced”.

  • The BMJ’s Editor’s Choice is supported by pharmaceutical companies which openly acknowledge the failure of animal models in their drug development process, and write about this often in the scientific literature, please visit this link for extensive and referenced quotes.

  • And current understanding of evolutionary biology and complexity science means that a rapidly growing number of internationally respected experts are warning about the dangers of the continued use of animal models as surrogate humans [2-4]. One of the most notable being the award winning oncologist Dr Azra Raza, director of the MDS Centre at Columbia University, who stated this in her TEDx talk “One of the reasons is that our system for developing drugs for cancer is essentially broke. We CAN and SHOULD do better. I am here on this stage today really because of the mouse. Earlier this year I pointed out that one of the reasons we are not developing novel therapies for cancer fast enough is that we have been relying too much on animal models. I've been getting hate mails since then, but the fact of the matter is that we cured acute myeloid leukemia in mice back in 1977 and in humans to day we are using the same drugs with absolutely dreadful results. We have to stop studying mice because it is essentially pointless and we have to start studying freshly obtained human cells".

  • Indeed, the National Cancer Institute has said we have lost cures for cancer because studies in rodents have been believed.

  • But arguably the most famous example of all – penicillin - is cited in EDM 373. Discovered by Alexander Fleming, penicillin was delayed for human patients by over a decade because it has no effect on rabbits. Here is Alexander Fleming on animal testing:‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised.’[5]

  • The purification of penicillin, by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain, helped it become the miracle cure which has saved millions of human lives. Here is Howard Florey on the toxicity tests he used: ‘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.'[6]

  • How many animals are used in such experiments, claimed able to benefit humans?

    As Dr Andre Menache clarified in his recent talk, around 75% of the 4 million UK lab animals used in experiments are categorized as 'basic research' (curiosity driven) which masquerades as 'applied research' (allegedly beneficial for humans) by falsely claiming 'predictive' for the responses of human patients, thereby essential in the search to find cures for illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and multiple sclerosis. These statistics are confirmed in a medical blog published by Dr Ray Greek, and examples of these experiments are exposed monthly in the Victims of Charity campaign. In addition, 13% of lab animals are claimed by the Home Office as 'predictive' for the safety testing of new human medicines. The misplaced funding of such experiments was the focus of the British Medical Journal's 'Editors Choice,' June 2014.

  • News Update!

    If you receive a misleading standard letter from your MP refusing to sign the EDM please visit this link to send an effective reply back.

FOR LIFE ON EARTH

'Time to Hear the Scientific Evidence' is presented by For Life On Earth (FLOE), the science-based campaign highlighted in EDM 373. Our evidence is illustrated by the leading medical Board against experiments on animals, Americans and Europeans For Medical Advancement

OUR VISION

Our vision is to effect the immediate abandonment of experiments on sentient animals, the vast majority of which are still claimed able to 'predict' the responses of humans. These experiments not only injure and destroy animals but are now scientifically proven to cause alarming harm to human patients, delaying the arrival of effective treatments and cures. This issue really is ‘Animal Experiments versus Human Patients’ and the time to hear the scientific evidence is now! Please write to your MP today!

Please DONATE to help us achieve our goals.

  • References

    1.BMJ 2014;348:g3719 available here

    2. Shanks N, Greek R Animal Models in Light of Evolution Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press; 2009.

    3. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J: Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2009, 4:2

    4. Heywood R. In: Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man. Lumley CE, Walker S Lancaster, Quay, editor. 1990. Clinical Toxicity – Could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience; pp. 57–67.

    5. Parke DV: Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Drug Safety Evaluation. ATLA 1994, 22:207-209.

    6. Florey H: The advance of chemotherapy by animal experiment. Conquest 1953, 41:12.