Intelligent Discussion - Testing on animals.

What are your views on testing on animals?
I feel that testing for medical reasons is nessecary (sp?), and unavoidable unless somebody created a prototype with human organisms/cells inside.
But I think that for make-up and cosmetivcs, testing on animals is absolutely wrong. Make-up is not an essential, whereas medicine is.

If testing on a rat can help find a cure for cancer/aids, then I think it should be done.

Any views?

I saw a cat testing a mouse once, I saw two weasels teasing and testing a baby puppy.

God tests us all the time....are we not all animals testing each other..

I agree with you Kim. I think that animal testing is okay for medical reasons becuase it's neccesary. But for makeup or other cosmetic products is wrong and shouldn't be done. It's disgusting and cruel.

I think that with stem cell research advancing, animal testing will soon be a thing of the past. It has been of great use so far for medial reasons, but an alternative will be more humane and effective.

I think that it is foolish and cruel because animals and humans are so different in some ways, that something that won't affect an animal will actually kill, or seriously harm a human.
For more information, google animal testing results, or something similar. I have heard that there were many babies born deformed because some morning sickness remedy worked fine on monekys, but was poisonous to humans.

//T.L.//

Bah, I say who cares. If they want to use animals, let 'em.

Although I don't see the harm in testing on humans, I mean, if someone agrees to risk their life, then what does it matter whether they live or die? It's their choice.

TL, you are referring to thalidomide, which is about the only instance of animal testing gone wrong that I can thik of. Seeing how much animal testing goes on I think that only one major mistake is forgiveable.

Personally I think animal testing is vital, whether it be shade testing and irritant level increment testing of cosmetics on rabbits to shot accuracy from newly designed rifles on pigs.

But then we could always test lipstick on models (they have no need for eyes anyway) and top end criminals would be more suited to bullet testing, after all the Japanese tested thier new swords on criminals and prisoners so why shouldn't we?

^^Currently, we are using animals, innocents, not criminals. Sure, we could do what the Japanese used to...why not? It doesn't sound all that humane, but much better than killing innocent animals.

//T.L.//

Thalidomide
Perhaps the most famous teratogen, this drug was given to pregnant women in the 1950’s to control nausea, causing more than 10,000 births with limb-reduction defects.4,5 After thalidomide was withdrawn from the market, tests in pregnant mice, rats, and guinea pigs were negative; finally, one strain of rabbit (the New Zealand white rabbit) was found to be susceptible. Cats, hamsters, rats, and mice were later found to be sensitive only to extremely high doses.3

Oraflex, Opren (Benoxaprofen)
Even though year-long tests in rhesus monkeys6 gave no indication of risk, months after this non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) was released onto the market in 1982, patients began experiencing severe liver toxicity and phototoxicity,7,8 eventually resulting in withdrawl of the drug, but only after more than 3,500 serious adverse events and 60 deaths occurred in Britain alone.9

Flenac (Fenclofenac)
This NSAID, despite passing animal toxicity tests in 10 animal species (mice, rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, and monkeys), produced severe liver toxicity in humans.10

Butazolidin (Phenylbutazone)
This NSAID is commonly used in equine medicine to reduce pain and inflammation, but in humans can produce serious phototoxicity,11 as well as serious or fatal liver12 or bone marrow13 disease. Bone marrow toxicity was demonstrated in human cell cultures after the drug was released and produced more than 10,000 fatal cases of aplastic anemia.14-16

Cylert (Pemoline)
Fifteen children suffered acute liver failure after taking this attention deficit hyperactivity disorder treatment, and 12 of those cases resulted in liver transplant or death.17 No animal tests that showed an indication of hepatic toxicity could be found.

Rezulin (Troglitazone)
This drug, intended to treat type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes, was approved by the FDA in 1997. Rezulin lowered the blood sugar in rats without producing adverse effects, but reports of severe and even fatal liver failure appeared immediately after approval. Due largely to an aggressive investigation by the Los Angeles Times and after four label changes, Rezulin was withdrawn in 2000 after 391 deaths were attributed to the drug.18

Propulsid (Cisapride)
Propulsid was approved by the FDA in 1993 and was used primarily to treat gastric reflux in children. Heart rhythm disturbances had appeared in clinical trials, but not in animal studies. By 1995, heart rhythm deaths in children became evident through adverse events reports. The drug remained on the market with five label changes, until being withdrawn in 2000 after causing over 300 deaths.18

Inocor (Amrinone)
This short-term therapy option for patients with severe heart failure produced severe and sometimes fatal thrombocytopenia (decreased blood clotting ability) in humans, despite no evidence of this effect in 2-year-long animal tests. Only after approval, and only in marmosets and a very specific, metabolically compromised strain of rat, were similar effects found.7

Baycol (Cerivastatin)
Baycol was a popular drug approved in 1997 for the treatment of dyslipidemia (abnormal cholesterol levels), but it was withdrawn after substantial risk for severe or fatal rhabdomyolysis (muscle wasting) was revealed in patients. Muscle wasting was not seen in pre-clinical animal tests, including rats, mice, minipigs, dogs, or monkeys; only at very high doses were indications of effects on muscle tissue seen.19 The authors concluded that cerivastatin was well tolerated in all species. Post-withdrawal tests using rat and human muscle cells in vitro revealed that rat cells are 200 times more resistant to the drug’s effects.20 Eventually more than 100 deaths were linked to cerivastatin.

Such a high error rate begs the question: How many possibly life-saving therapies have clinicians never investigated because of toxicities in other animal species? Penicillin, which was originally discovered in 1929, wasn’t used until 1939 because of its ineffectiveness in curing infected rabbits. If it had been “safety” tested in cats, guinea pigs, or hamsters, it would have been abandoned as toxic.21

Furosemide (Lasix) is one of our most important diuretics, used to reduce fluid retention during heart failure and other diseases. Though experiments in mice show extensive liver damage, decades of clinical use have proven its safety for humans.22,23

One of our most relied-upon pain relievers, Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid), causes teratogenic malformations in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys.3

//T.L.//

^^Link: http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/dangerous_med.html

Nsaids: Just counts as one, they are all very similar and listing them all was slightly tedious if interesting. They all have the same affect on body
toxicity levels. An FDA problem

Cylert: Goes to proove that kids shouldn't be diagnosed with add in the first place.

Rezulin: Only rats were tested which is idiocy on the tester's part. How did this get fda approved? On the upside it should work nicely in the veternarian profession.

Cisapride: Heart problems showed in human tests. Again this is an FDA problem not that of testing.

Inocor: Where is the human trial data?

Baycol: FDA approved after successful testing, but again, where are the human trials?

Lasix: Where are the test results on other animals?

As I am from England and the FDA never had the hold over me that it does now it is fair to say that from my point of view Thalidomide is only english result on your list. The rest seem to have either a lack of complete test results, be that human or animal or appear to have been pushed through by the FDA.

Point, counter point.

Human clinical trials will involve testing a potential drug on 3-5,000 human volunteers and patients. If a side effect (affecting say 1 in 10,000 patients) shows up only after this stage, then it is difficult to see how it could have been spotted before. This was the case with Eraldin, which, in clinical trials in over 2,000 patients, produced only constipation in 44 patients - the most serious side effect found. It was only after it had been prescribed hundreds of thousands of times that this effect was discovered. It makes no sense to blame the animal tests for rare side effects, after a drug has been tested on cells and tissues, in animals, in people, and after it has been used by many thousands of patients.

Figures are often quoted by animal rights sympathisers on drug induced deaths or hospitalisation due to drug side effects. These are highly exaggerated and misleading. Most of these deaths are not caused by normal doses of drugs, but are in fact due to accidental or deliberate overdose.2

The number of drugs withdrawn from the market is also consistently overstated by animal rights activists, who often refer glibly to "an endless list". In fact, of the 2,000 types of drugs on the market, since 1961 less than 40 have been withdrawn in the UK, US, France or Germany due to serious side effects. This indicates a success rate of at least 98% for drug testing procedures. In fact, only 10 of these drugs have been withdrawn in all four countries.3

One of the longest lists of drugs withdrawn, allegedly due to side effects somehow caused by animal testing, has been drawn up by Vernon Coleman in his book Betrayal of Trust. A columnist for The People, Coleman is well-known for his opposition to animal experiments. He claims to list the names of 85 "thoroughly tested drugs which had to be withdrawn".4 In fact 84 drugs are listed as withdrawn between 1961 and 1993. This should be revised to 83, since both Ticrinafen and Tienilic acid are included although they are the same drug.

Creating a list of drugs withdrawn is no easy task. Of the 83 on Coleman's list only 46 were withdrawn from the UK market. The others were either never marketed here or were not in fact withdrawn. If a drug is withdrawn in one country then other authorities do not necessarily follow suit. It is not surprising that medical opinion in different countries varies as to the need for withdrawal. For example, France, but not the UK and USA, withdrew the powerful antibiotic chloramphenicol from the market in 1978 (after 28 years) because of its action in causing death due to aplastic anaemia in a few, susceptible individuals.

Ignoring the problems of creating a single list of drugs withdrawn from any country, Coleman's list certainly does not provide evidence that animal experimentation is responsible for toxicity observed in clinical use. Fourteen drugs on the list were withdrawn at least partly because of adverse results from ongoing animal toxicity tests (usually long-term carcinogenic tests, occasionally teratogenic studies). Sixteen drugs included had been in long-term use (15-103 years) and were marketed before animal toxicity tests became a routine requirement. A further 19 were withdrawn due to factors not relevant to the basic investigation of possible toxicity in animals. These factors include a toxic interaction with other drugs or a constituent of the diet (for example the monoamineoxidase inhibitors), or because they were produced in a novel formulation that was not retested (Indomethacin-R or Osmosin for example). Finally, some drugs were withdrawn as a result of fraudulent research or suppression of data (apparently the case for Doxylamine succinate - Debendox).

Making allowances for overlap, ie some drugs falling in to two or more categories, 37 drugs out of the original 83 were withdrawn because of unforeseen toxicity during clinical use. An average of 1.2 per year throughout the US, UK, France and Germany.

The commonest myths about so called species differences and drug side effects relate to penicillin and thalidomide. Other myths in circulation relate to the effects of acetylcholine, chloroform, clioquinol (Enterovioform), corticosteroids, digitalis, fialuridine, Flosint (indoprofen), isoprenaline, methotrexate, morphine, triparanol.

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=5&i_PageID=150

Truest Lies, although you bring up good point for the drugs failing, are you going to still be annoyed at testing on animals if they find a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS?

^^Not annoyed, but I am certainly now, because they test useless things on animals, like makeup, mouthwash, well, cosmetics and stuff that we don't actually need, and they make animals suffer SO much!
If you can, read The Naked Empress... it shows scientists experimenting on animals in the most horrific ways, and laughing or smiling as they do it..

If we must, use criminals, people who might actually deserve such a painful fate, but not animals. They do not deserve the torture that they are submitted to during "tests."

//T.L.//

Truest Lies is a vegetarian. It's all swings and roundabouts on the clothes issue because most glues are made from animals too, so anything you wear that has glue (footwear, gloves, caps, jackets etc) will have some animal parts in them anyway.

Then there are things around the house. It's trivial and unavoidable so a pretty useless argument.

Back on subject, Truest Lies, do you have a reasonable answer to my second reply?

its wrong

Truest Lies - Yes I agree with you about the make-up and cosmetics part. That is totally unneccessary as we don't NEED those.

i just think its wrong altogether. if theyre trying to find a cure for something then they should use human cells... blood cells, cells containing the virus, etc, instead of some poor animal who could die because they wanted to see the side effects of a certain medicine. i dont think its right.

They use human cells already but how do you know how it will affect a living organ or a human as an organism without testing it on a living organism first?