Controversial views

[brewer]

OK this is a well sourced post about animal testing. I'll keep looking for more. If anyone finds proper rebuttals on the net, I'd be interested.

Basically, humans are too different to animals for the results to be meaningful.

http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-rea...pointless/

Sorry this took so long Rob. Took awhile to look at the quotes and sources. I only looked at the first 10 then stopped.

Well, you certainly stayed with the thread topic. PETA is controversial. They have a love and emotion for animals and animal rights that would be hard to surpass. However, that amount of emotion often makes rationality take a back seat. Remember this?:

http://madworldnews.com/peta-greased-pig-on-ice/
http://www.rightrelevance.com/search/art...malrrights

Rob, this is only my response and not meant to change your position. I like your passion about animals.

I've put the quote and reference from the site directly following each other (less scrolling). My thoughts are in that funny slanted type. Some sites for your perusal then follow.

1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
1) Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
Can’t review online. Animal rights activists. Maybe be true in nature. Does not address engineering animal models.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902221/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/

2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
2) ‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989.
Lumley appears to be Cynthia Lumley. She is animal testing.
http://het.sagepub.com/content/11/3/155.short

3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
3) Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
Their reference no loner online. Cell toxicity does not translate to whole system toxicity (i.e. organ).

4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
4) Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
Can’t review online. Appears to be taken out of context.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.o...ontext.pdf

5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
5) Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
Read the site.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2011/497841/

6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
6) GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress (http://www.safermedicines.net)
Survey not found on site referenced. Read the site:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/

7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
7) F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
Can’t review online.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6489158

8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.
8) R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
It appears in other animals. Google: carcinoma in animals.
http://emice.nci.nih.gov/aam

9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
9) D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine
Can’t review online. This addresses housing of the animal models to eliminate testing variance between animals and humans.
 
10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
10) EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
Can’t review online. Discusses sex differences, not response differences to chemicals from animal models to humans. Refer to another site where it is referenced:
http://alternativestoanimalresearch.org/...ations.pdf
 
Some additional reading:
https://speakingofresearch.com/extremism...d-science/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/arg...-research/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23954708
http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-...-research/
http://animal-testing.procon.org/#pro_con
http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/usin...-cons.html

Sorry if I went overboard. I sometimes do that.