Quotes 10

AR Quotes 10

Brutes have the same external senses that we have; they have, of course, all the same inlets to ideas that we have, and though, on account of their wanting a sufficient quantity of brain, perhaps, chiefly, the combination and association of their ideas cannot be so complex as ours: and [while]...they cannot make so great a progress in intellectual improvements, they must necessarily have, in kind, every faculty that we are possessed of.

Also since they evidently have memory, passion, will, and judgment too, as their actions demonstrate, they must of course have the faculty that we call abstraction as well as the rest; though not having the use of words, they cannot communicate their ideas to us.

Joseph Priestly (Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, 1777).

Shall we say that only humans have the requisite intelligence, or autonomy, or reason? But there are many, many humans who fail to meet these standards and yet are reasonably viewed as having value above and beyond their usefulness to others.

Professor Tom Regan.

The figures for animal experiments have continued to rise every year, not because ever better and safer drugs have been coming on the market, but simply because more drugs have been coming on the market. Paradoxically, the increase in tests on animals have reflected the growing recognition of how inadequate the tests have been in the past.

Brian Inglis, Drugs, Doctors and Disease.

Doctors who speak out in favour of experimentation do not deserve any recognition in society, all the more so since their brutality is apparent not only during such experiments, but also in their practical medical lives. They are mostly men who stop at nothing in order to satisfy their ruthless and unfeeling lust for honours and gain.

Dr. med. Hugo Knecht (Linz: 1909).

Biomedical research does not need animals. It is foolish and even dangerous to follow this traditional way. The difference between man and animal is so great that it usually leads us into error.

Professor L. Sprovieri (paper presented at Symposium on Thoracic Surgery, Sorreno).

The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that.

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinois.

A drug is a substance that, when injected into a rat, produces a scientific paper.

Dr. Toni Jefferys, PhD.

False positives and false negatives abound. Once one has established that a drug is a teratogen for man, it is usually possible to find, retrospectively, a suitable [animal] model. But trying to predict human toxicity - which is after all what the screening game is all about - is quite another matter...

Dr. L. Lasagna, Drug Use in Pregnancy (Boston: Adis Health Science Press, 1984).

It is often dangerous to assume that data from other species are applicable to human beings.

Dr H. Werner Goedde (expert on human genetics), in Ethnic Differences in Reactions to Drugs and Xenobiotics, ed. by W. Karlow, H. W. Goedde and D. P. Agarwal (Alan R. Liss, 1986), p.16.

The prescription drugs you take are being tested on you.

Melinda Kalaya.

Animal studies can neither prove or guarantee the safety of any drug. They are not a substitute for testing in humans.

J. Jennings, Vice President, Science and Technology of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us'. Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us'. Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.

Professor Charles R. Magel.

Researchers' doubts about human research methodologies thus come back to haunt them. They are faced with a dilemma: they can determine the relevance of animal research for humans only by testing these results in humans...

In fact, the differences are so profound that we cannot safely generalize findings in animals to humans, not even for drugs within the same chemical or pharmacologic class.

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996), pp.23,123.

Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans...

In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability.

Herbert Gundersheimer, M.D., Baltimore, Maryland, 1988.

One of the overriding interests of the pharmaceutical and biotechnologies industry is to...create alternative development strategies that are less reliant on poor animal predictor models of human disease...

One of the overriding interests of the pharmaceutical and biotechnologies industry is to...create alternative development strategies that are less reliant on poor animal predictor models of human disease.

Dr M. G. Palfreyman, Dr V. Charles and J. Blander, 'The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery, DDW (Drug Discovery World), Fall 2002, p.34.

Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby.

Herbert Stiller, M.D. and Margot Stiller, M.D., Tierversuch and Tierexperimentator, 1976.

Experiments with animals have yielded considerable information concerning the teratogenic effects of drugs. Unfortunately, these experimental findings cannot be extrapolated from species to species, or even from strain to strain within the same species, much less from animals to humans.

Dr. S. J. Yaffe, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1980, p.13.

There is no comprehensive animal model for humankind...The truth is, and always has been, that the first clinical use of new medication in human patients provides the first reliable clues as to what can be expected of it. Pre-marketing research on animals is a lottery; post marketing surveillance comes too late for the first human victims of drug side-effects.

Dr Peter Mansfield, Animal Experiments in Medicine: The Case Against, May 1990.

The history of the development of both the major antidepressants and the antipsychotic drugs points up to the fact that major scientific discoveries can evolve as a consequence of clinical investigations [with humans] rather than deductions from basic animal research.

J. M. Davis, 'Antipsychotic Drugs', in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, ed. H. I. Kaplan, B. J. Sadock (1985).

Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals.

I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray.

Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh and England.

The spiritual malady that rages in the soul of the vivisector is in itself sufficient to render him incapable of acquiring the highest and best knowledge. He finds it easier to propagate and multiply disease than to discover the secret of health. Seeking for the germs of life, he invents only new methods of death.

Dr Anna Kingsford, Britain's first woman doctor.

Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions.

Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of Bell's Law on motor and sensory nerves.

In the old days we were taught, as the result purely of animal experiments, that digitalis raised the blood-pressure. We now know that this is utter nonsense.

James Burnet, M.A., LLB (Lond.), M.D., F.R.C.P.E., Medical World, 3 July 1942, p.338.

Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings. The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous.

Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, 5 February 1943, p.608.

Despite the fact that animal tests often form the basis for legislative control measures, it is important to remember that humans do not necessarily respond in the same way as animals.

Croner's Substances Hazardous to Health, February 1987, p.1ff.

With respect to how we judge the toxicity of potential biologic activity of a given compound, animal tests are not necessarily the final word. They're probably misleading...

Clark Heath, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research, American Cancer Society.

Hypertension can be produced in experimental animals in several different ways, but none of these artificial systems have been helpful in predicting the action of hypotensive drugs in man. The data cannot be analysed because so many unjustified assumptions and interpretations have been made.

E. Paget, Drug Responses in Man, (J.A. Churchill Ltd, 1967), pp.120-121.

It could be argued that this [cancer research] is a field of research which has consumed an enormous number of animals - without any tangible result.

Professor D. H. Smyth.

There is a natural law connected with metabolism, according to which a biochemical reaction that has been established for one species is valid only for that particular species and no other...Animal experimentation is fallacious, useless, expensive, and furthermore, cruel.

G. Tamino, Congressman and researcher at the University of Padua, Italy.

Animal models are selected on the basis of how many criteria they possess, such as ready availability, low cost, ease of handling, high fertility. ease of breeding, large litters, short gestation. length, ease of mating time determination, low rates of spontaneous deaths and developmental abnormalities, ease with which their fetuses can be examined and the amount of information available on their reproduction, development, and response to developmental toxicants...

The rationale for using such criteria is that none of the animal models tested is an obvious counterpart of humans in response to developmental toxicants...

R. Hood, 'Animal models of effects of prenatal insult', in Developmental Toxicology: Risk assessment and the Future, ed. by R. Hood (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990), pp.184-5.

Nonhuman primates offer the closest approximation to human teratological conditions because of phylogenetic similarities...

However, a review of the literature indicates that except for a few teratogens (sex hormones, thalidomide, radiation, etc.) the results in nonhuman primates are not comparable to humans.

B. M. Mitruka, H. M. Rawnsley, and D. V. Vadehra, Animals for Medical Research; Models for the Study of Human Disease (New York: Wiley, 1976) pp.467-8.

A great deal of time and effort has been expended discussing the most suitable species for teratology studies, and it is time that a few fallacies were laid to rest.

First, there is no such thing as an ideal test species, particularly if the intent is to extrapolate the results to man.

A. Palmer, 'Design of subprimate animal studies', in Handbook of Teratology, ed. by J. Wilson and F. C. Fraser, vol. 4 (New York: Plenum Press, 1978), p.219.

Gamfexine was the first drug that failed to show a correlation between animal tests and human trials. Its effect on cats was exceptional but it worsened the clinical status of human patients, two of whom had to be prevented from committing suicide.

Gamfexine was first in a long line of failures.

Journal Clin. Psychiatry, 44:5 [sec 2], 1983, 40-48.

Vivisection is dictated by convenience, not science. It is a strange, unrealistic mind that accepts a genetically engineered moron as a replica of human physiology, or at least one that pertains to it.

It may be a feat of engineering. but it has no place on the meaningful study of human disease, and its treatment, for it bears even less resemblance to us than its unfortunate predecessors do.

Dr David Johnson, MRCS, IRCP, MF (Hons.), D.(Obst.), RCOG., 'Animal-orientated medicine: The be-all or the end-all?', DLRM Newsletter, No.11, 2004.

Experiments with animals have yielded considerable information concerning the teratogenic effects of drugs. Unfortunately, these experimental findings cannot be extrapolated from species to species, or even from strain to strain within the same species, much less from animals to humans...

Dr. S. J. Yaffe, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 1980, p.13.

Unfortunately many anti-epileptic drugs show marked pharmacological differences between animals and man.

Meijer, et al, Discoveries in Pharmacology, vol.1, Psycho- and Neuro- Pharmacology, (Elsevier, 1983), p.454.

The animal and human organs show striking differences in their sensitivity to chemical combinations. Allergic reactions...can hardly be foreseen by means of animal experimentation. The question is a justified one - What medical discoveries of any significance have ever come about through animal experiments?.

Dr. M. Widmer, Schweizerische Aerzrezeitung.

In short, the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, aided by confused and confusing government testing requirements, make guinea pigs of both us and guinea pigs, while at the same time they sanctimoniously portray themselves as searching for cures or otherwise improving the quality of human life.

Professor Gary L. Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or Your Dog? (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), p.49.

[Vivisection] is not science - it is a lottery. However, we are not playing games. At stake are health and life. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The day it was decided to develop medicines using animals, it was a sad day for mankind.

Dr A. Brecher, M.D.

David E. Semler of G. D. Searle and Company writing about these discrepancies in Animal Models of Toxicology goes on to describe differences between male and female rats, between different strains of rats, and between the results of studies on rats conducted at different research institutions. Even when the same rats are used for the same experiment at different research institutions, the results are different...

Drug companies conduct a lot of animal tests so that, in case the drug makes people sick or kills them, they can later point to the rigorous animal tests that they performed and claim that they did their best to ensure against such tragedy - and thus minimizing the monetary judgement against them...

Dr Ray and Jean Greek, Specious Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2002), pp.21ff,107,121-122.

One of the major challenges facing the drug discovery community is the limitation and poor predictability of animal-based strategies. Over the last decade, drug discovery has largely been based on finding targets in animal models and then identifying the human homologue...many drugs have failed in later stages of development because the animal data were poor predictors of efficacy in the human subject...

Mice and humans have more than 95 per cent of their genes in common, yet mice are not men, or women...Although cell-based and animal models of disease have been the cornerstone of drug discovery, it is increasingly apparent that they are of limited predictive value for complex disorders.

Dr M. G. Palfreyman, Dr V. Charles and J. Blander, 'The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery', Drug Discovery World, Fall 2002, pp.33,34.

To the 2.6 million people around the world afflicted with multiple sclerosis, medicine has offered more frustration than comfort. Time after time, researchers have discovered new ways to cure laboratory rats of experimental induced encephalomyelitis, the murine model of MS, only to face obstacles in bringing the treatment to humans.

Dr. Gibbs, Experimental and Molecular Medicine, 1999:31:115-121.

The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply did not work in humans.

Dr. Richard Klausner (NIH Director), Los Angeles Times, 6 May 1998.

Whether the 'censorship' practised by these animal models prevented us from developing chemically novel antidepressants remains an unanswered question. We do know that in the last 25 years not a single compound has been discovered which is unequivocally better in clinical efficacy than the very first drug of this class.

It was the very failure of these animal models in screening out ineffective compounds that ushered in the next stage of psychopharmacologic research.

Journal Clin. Psychiatry, 44:5 [sec 2], 1983, pp.40ff.

Another syndrome that keeps animal labs and their suppliers in business is the media. Medical 'miracles' grab virtually everyone. Hence, television and newspaper reports of prospective new drugs exaggerate their efficacy and minimize the obstacles and side- effects.

Considering the slanted press releases the editors receive, it is easy enough to do. These news items almost invariably involve animals. Apparent advances garnered through animal studies get lots of publicity, but when these same drugs later perform poorly in clinical trials, there is barely a whisper...

Dr Ray and Jean Greek, Specious Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2002), p.132.

Results to date suggest that the predictive value of a candidate gene, established in such an animal model, is rather low...In fact, it can be questioned whether the use of animal models is the most effective way to detect candidate genes for complex human disorders.

Due to the complexity of the genotype-environment interactions, the pathways that lead to an aberrant phenotype often differ between man and animal.

Comparative Medicine, 2000, 50:10-11.

As a very approximate estimate, for any individual drug, [only] up to twenty-five per cent of the toxic effects observed in animal studies might be expected to occur as adverse reactions in man.

Dr. A. P. Fland, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol.71, 1978, pp.693-696.

What is the value of routine tests in animals for prediction of chemical teratogens? The correlation between known effects in laboratory animals and clinical adverse effects in very low.

Dr. K. S. Larsson, et al, The Lancet (Letters), 21 August 1982, p.439.

As a scientist, I am of the opinion that animal experiments bring no progress in the diagnosis and therapy of epilepsies. I have a well-founded suspicion that similar facts apply in other areas of medicine.

Dr. Med. Bernhard Rambeck, director of Biochemistry Dept. of the Society for Epilepsy Research, Bielefeld-Bethel, Germany. Speech at International Symposium, 25 April 1987.

We had basically discovered compounds that were good mouse drugs rather than good human drugs.

Edward Sausville, associate director of the division of cancer treatment, National Cancer Institute, in Science, 7 November 1997, p.1041.

Knowledge deriving from animal experimentation is never entirely applicable to the human species.

Professor Rene Dubos, Pulitzer prize-winner and professor of microbiology, in Man, Medicine and Environment (Praeger, New York, 1968), p.107.

Specific genetic defects [of transgenic animals] can be as difficult to identify and characterize as those of their human counterparts; and affected animals often differ from unaffected controls in their genetic factors addition to the gene in question.

ATLA, 1998:26:27.

The standard carcinogen tests that use rodents are an obsolescent relic of the ignorance of past decades.

Philip H. Abelson, Deputy Editor of Science: (Editorial, Science, vol.249, 1990, p.1357).

I think very often the carcinogenicity studies are a waste of everybody's time and a fearful waste of animals. They are conducted partly because we are not sure what to do instead, and partly because they are a political gesture and a very miserable one at that.

Prof. Andre McLean, Dept. of Clinical Pharmacology, University College MCM, London. Reported in Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology, 1991.

There is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species difference.

Dr. George Lin, In vitro Toxicology, vol.1, 1987.

The weakness and intellectual poverty of a naive trust in animal tests may be shown in several ways, e.g., the humiliatingly large number of medicines discovered only by serendipitous observation in man (ranging from diuretics to antidepressants), or by astute analysis of deliberate or accidental poisoning, the notorious examples of valuable medicines which have seemingly 'unacceptable' toxicity in animals, e.g., griseofulvin producing tumours and furosemide causing hepatic necrosis in mice [and] the stimulant action of morphine in cats...

The rapidly increasing interest in clinical pharmacology, and the drive to better means of measurements in man, also reflect the uncertainty of animal experimentation and realization that the study of man alone can ever prove entirely valid for other men.

Dr. Anthony Dayan, of Wellcome Research Laboratories, in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed. Cavalla, 1981, p.97.

I have a growing conviction that many animal data are not only obtained unethically, at huge cost in animal suffering, but are also unscientific, misleading, wasteful (in terms of dollars and effort) and may be actually harmful to humans.

Dr Jane Goodall, Ph.D (Primatologist). From the foreword to Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals.

Since the genes determine all biological activities, it follows that the species' response to any external stimulu, including toxic products, is strictly species-specific also.

Thus, no species can function as a biological model for another species, no matter how closely related they are phylogenetically (in evolution). This is particularly true for toxic risk assessment.

Bulletin of DLRM (Doctors and Laeyers for Responsible Medicine). October 2001.

Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall.

Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, renowned researcher, and former vivisector.

For the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. The chance is of overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used.

Dr C. Dollery, in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, p.87.

Vivisection makes medical students less tender of sufferings, begets indifference to it, and deadens their humanity...

There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science, as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion.
Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Professor of Surgery, Medical School Harvard University.

Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that.

There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it.

Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988/89, surgeon of thirty years, West Germany.

Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect.

Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany. Diagnosen, March 1980.

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.

I agree that for the benefit of medical science, vivisection has to be stopped. There are lots of reasons: the most important is that it is simply misleading, and both the past and present testify to that...

Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals. He has only learnt wrongly through animals. I have been able to see this over my many decades as a surgeon and a director of hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal.

Professor Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, surgeon and professor of urology at the University of Turin, cit. Ray and Jean Greek, Specious Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2002), p.169.

After 41 years' experience as a surgeon, I can say with certainty that in my case animal experiments have contributed nothing to extending my surgical knowledge. That is definite.

Professor Dr. Julius Hackethal, a foremost surgeon in Germany.

Experimental [animal] models are far removed from clinical reality...[some] investigators, for instance, measure brain damage in mice by the animals' ability to grasp a string....

Scientific American, September 1987.

[Re Muscular Dystrophy animal research]: In the dog and man the degenerative and fibrotic aspects predominate...leading to severe clinical disability. By contrast, in the mouse and the cat there is little fibrosis... This interspecies variation in pathological response limits the usefulness of these animals as models of therapeutic testing.

'Review', Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology, 1991;17:353-363.

Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it.

A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed.

Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris.

Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it.

Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

There are many known differences between chimps and humans. Certainly there are enough differences to make the use of chimps for medical experiments as if they were human nonsensical. No chimps...have been of any use in the experiments they were used for...The whole wretched business (and it is big business) should be stopped and stopped now.

Professor Vernon Reynolds, primatologist and Professor of biological anthropology, University of Oxford. (Letter 29/02/1996, and foreword in The Wrong Path, 1996).

There are inherent problems in trying to make interspecies comparisons. By taxonomic definition, a rat is a rat and not a human. Human beings have been reproductively isolated for millions of years and...numerous other metabolic differences have also developed. In fact, these differences may be so significant as to cause rats and humans to respond very differently to a same agent...

These examples should serve to illustrate that interspecies differences in the absorption of organic compounds do indeed exist and that in specific instances the degree of difference can be appreciable. Of the thirty-eight organic compounds reviewed here, more than one third of them...appeared to be differently absorbed by animal models when compared to human subjects.

Principles of Animal Extrapolation, Calabrese, Edward J. Lewis Publishing, 1991, p.5.

There is no...good animal model for the [Alzheimer's] disease process characterized by a loss of cognitive functions and memory decline.

Dr. D. Lindholm (Uppsala University), Journal Neural. Transm., Suppl., 1997:49, 33-42, Review.

More than eight hundred chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately twenty, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans.

Trends in Pharmacological Science, vol.8, 1987, p.133.

The assumption that an animal species can stand as a reliable model for human biological reactions amounts to playing Russian Roulette with the patient's life.

Dr Claude Reiss, DLRM Newsletter, No.9, Autumn 2002.

Most of the work on brain research has been done on cats and monkeys. It is risky to extrapolate such data to the human brain.

Scientist W. H. Wheeler, Science Digest, November 1972.

Moreover the limited predictive value of animal models of CNS [Central Nervous System] disease is also a challenge. Often disease phenotypes cannot be directly mimicked in animals (e.g. hallucinations) and even where there are correlates (e.g. sleep, pain, movement), the triggers used to mimic disease are often based on poorly understood mechanisms or existing pharmacology.

Dr J. C. Barnes and Dr A. G. Hayes, 'CNS drug discovery: Realising the dream', DDW (Drug Discovery World), Fall 2002, p.55.

The pre-market failure rate of drug candidates has been measured and remeasured from varying perspectives but always leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the process is inefficient...

Approved drugs have frequently been withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse reactions. Between October 1997 and September 1998, a number of FDA-approved drugs were withdrawn but not before being prescribed to 20 million patients in the US alone...

The failure rate [of new drugs] is so high: about 1 in 10...survives from initiation of clinical evaluation to market launch...Despite the expense and time committed to drug development, approved drugs have frequently been withdrawn from the market due to severe adverse reactions.

Dr L. J. Browne and L. L. Taylor, 'Predictive chemoinformatics', DDW (Drug Discovery World), Fall 2002, pp.72,73.

History has shown that in the long run all dictators fail; and also for the dictatorial empire of the pharmaceutical speculation, built on the sufferings of animals needlessly tortured in the laboratories and on the sufferings of human beings, victims of iatrogenic (medically-induced) diseases, the day of redde rationem (final reckoning) is bound to come....

Giornale d'Italie, 20 February 1983.

Extrapolating from one species to another is fraught with uncertainity...

For almost all of the chemicals tested to date, rodent bioassays have not been cost effective. They give limited and uncertain information on carcinogenicity, generally give no indication of mechanism of action, and require years to complete.

L. B. Lave, et al, 'Information value of the rodent bioassay', Nature, 336, 1998, pp.631,633.

In 1990, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released FDA Drug Review, Postapproval Risks 1976-1985...Of the 198 [animal-tested] drugs reviewed, 102 were found to have sufficiently serious side effects to warrant either complete withdrawal from the marketplace or significant label changes so as to advise physicians and the public of new dangers associated with their use.

The Law Loft, Johnstown Co., 1996 (USA).

The crucial issue is not whether animal experiments are scientifically necessary, but that the experiments themselves are 'bad science', looking at questions to which no-one needs to know the answer and so crudely that the results are meaningless.

Dr J. Lefanu, Sunday Telegraph, 23 November 1997.

Difficulties of interpretation are compounded because the species routinely used in toxicological studies are chosen not on consideration of their phylogenetic relationship to man but on practical grounds of cost, breeding rate, litter size, ease of handling, resistance to intercurrent infection, and laboratory tradition.

Highly inbred strains of animal are used to achieve greater consistency of response, but this in no way overcomes the fundamental problem of inter-species variation, and there is no assurance that consistency increases the relevance of a response to man.

Dr. J. R. Dunne, in Textbook of Adverse Drug Reactions, 1981, p.37.

The probability of experimental results in animals and in man coinciding is so slight that it is comparable to a game of chance. Nonetheless on this improbable game of roulette we bet millions of dollars each year.

Professor Herbert Hensel, physiologist at the University of Marburg. Cit., W. Hartinger, Gentenchnollgie, September, 1995.

Prediction of human lethal and toxic doses is poor due to species differences between animals and humans, and the toxic mechanisms of the chemicals cannot be directly predicted using current animal tests.

Dr. Bjorn Ekwall, Chairman of the Cytotoxicology Laboratory, Toxicolog In vitro, Aug-Oct 1999.

Some findings in colon cancer mice, which were very good models, actually led to clinical trials in humans which resulted in an increase in cancer.

Dr. J. E. Green of the National Cancer Institute Laboratory, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2001, 93:976.

Contrary to the commonly held view, which is supported by the newspapers and by scientists' own mothers, many scientists are not merely mentally ill-equipped but are also just plain stupid.

Dr James Watson, Nobel Prizewinner for Medicine and Physiology. Cit. Vernon Coleman, Paper Doctors: A Critical Assessment of the Medical Establishment, 1977.

[Animal models] may not offer an uncomplicated straightforward means of discovering preventable causes for the majority of human cancers, and at the very least it certainly does not seem likely that they can offer a reliable means of estimating quantitative human hazards.

Journal. Nat. Cancer. Inst., 1981,6:1215.

The extensive animal reproductive studies to which all new drugs are now subjected are more in the nature of a public relations exercise than a serious contribution to drug safety.

Prof. R. W. Smithells, in Monitoring Drug Safety, ed. Inman, 1980, pp.306-313.

When an analgesic (pain-killer) was administered to rabbits and rats, they were unaffected by doses of up to 80 or 100 mg/kg/day respectively. However when the analgesic was given to monkeys and dogs, 30 mg/kg/day resulted in vomiting, weight loss, unconsciousness and even death. Thus, how can the vivisector possibly advise about the safety, or the right dose for a human being?.

Dr Floyd R. Domer, Animal Experiments in Pharmacological Analysis (Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1971), p.30.

Considerable variation occurs among animal species in their response to drugs used to alleviate pain and distress. The comparative pharmacodynamics and kinetics of most agents are unknown for many species, especially the smaller laboratory animals. Extrapolation of data from one species to another is fraught with error and should be avoided.

JAVMA, 1987:191:1227-30.

The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between [just] five and twenty-five percent.

Dr. Ralph Heywood, director of Huntingdon Research Centre (now Huntingdon Life Sciences), cited Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man (Quay, 1990), p.57.

Animals apparently do not handle the drugs in exactly the same way as the human body does.

Dr. Tyler Jacks of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Science, 7 November 1997, p.1041.

There has been no satisfactory conclusion reached on the dilemma as to what extent investigators may rely upon the use of animals for investigation of drug actions and the predictability of drug actions in animals for their usefulness in man.

Professor F. R. Domer, M.D., Animal Experiments in Pharmacological Analyis (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1971)

Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.

Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

It is impossible to evaluate the safety of using animal studies to predict the safety of drugs and chemicals in man.

D. V. Parke, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, University of Surrey, 1 May 1996.

Not only are the [animal testing] studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs.

Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

It is astonishing that irrational arguments continue to be used in defence of animal tests. To sustain that animal assays are the best we have for human risk assessment does not certify their adequacy or defend their misuse.

Gio Batta Gori, 'Are animal tests relevant in cancer risk assessment?', Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 13 (1991), 226.

Extrapolation from the animal mode to humans, represents something of a leap of faith.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (Washington DC, Office of the President), 1 February 1979, p.14.

All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known.

Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery.

Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans.

Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology. Abstract from various TV interviews and articles by Prof. Fedi in the course of 1986.

My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity.

Dr. G. F. Walker, 1933.

Anti-vivisectionist thinking is much more scientific than the boasting of vivisectors, who operate in a medieval climate of thought. They are too lazy or too greedy to break loose from a comfortable conformity and to apply themselves to the historical scientifically correct methods...

Research using animals turns its back on the human being and creates a tangle of ideas, that, in turn, require further research. It is like a problem factory in which thousands of researchers, working with a useless machine, are clever enough at thinking up solutions but not intelligent enough to grasp the fact that they are going round in circles.

Professor Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science? (Zed: London, 1999; p.5,55).

Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated.

Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin.

A. L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N.Z.

The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals.

This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses.

Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals.

And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned.

Congressman, Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, Congressman in the Italian Parliament. Gazzettino, Venice, Oct 8, 1987.

Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished.

Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.

Experiments on animals do not only mean torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people. Vivisection is a double-edged sword.

Major R. F. E. Austin, M.D., 1927, Royal College of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.

Cawadias (1953) has said that 'The history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation and disaster'.

British Medical Journal, October 8 1955, p.867.

Knowledge deriving from animal experimentation is never entirely applicable to the human species.

Rene Dubos, Pulitzer Prize-winner and Professor of microbiology: Man, Medicine and Environment, 1968.

In part because of possible major differences in responses to drugs in animals and man, the knowledge gained from studies in animals is often not pertinent to human beings, will almost certainly be inadequate, and may even be misleading.

Arnold D. Welch, Department of Pharmacology, Yale University School of Medicine: Drug Responses in Man, 1967.

Another basic problem which we share as a result of the regulations and the things that prompted them is an unscientific preoccupation with animal studies. Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless - which means our research may be meaningless.

Dr. James G. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories. Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14, 1964.

I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.

Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic. New York Daily News, Mar. 13, 1961.

Unfortunately these experiments will continue in a self-proliferating manner until they are curtailed by brave and innovative decisions on the part of people in positions of authority who have the courage to declare openly that the emperor has no clothes and that it is time to stop wasting money and animal lives on the pretense that manipulating several variables in rats, dogs, cats or monkeys has anything to do with human psychology.

Murray Cohen, M.D.

I cannot recall a single instance where my clinical judgement was even remotely influenced by the results of a psychological study using animals as subjects or models. In view of what I perceive to be the complete irrelevance of the often cruel experiments inflicted upon innocent animals, I wish to go on record in calling for the termination of the use of non-human animals in psychological experimentation.

Michael Klaper, M.D.

An increasing number of clinicians realize that psychological animal experimentation is both unscientific and ethically bankrupt. I am among them. What do we really learn by separating infant macaques from their mothers? Does blinding a kitten teach us anything about human behaviour? There is no human payoff from ablating the brains of cats, monkeys, squirrels or mice.

Wayne Johnson, Ph.D.

To promote animal research by using Linda McCartney's suffering and death reveals a compassionless letter writer who knows nothing about medical history. In light of severe and insurmountable shortcomings in animal research, the National Cancer Institute drug discovery program switched to in-vitro, non-animal testing.

Directly due to this, an explosion of new and successful chemotherapies have been rapidly brought to patients. Since these drugs were discovered and their activity defined without animals, McCartney could have a clear conscience using them.

The same cannot be said of animal research zealots who gloss over a species' specific response to drugs and therapies. This is why dozens of drugs and devices found safe in animal tests kill humans, and why thalidomide was found safe in 50 species of pregnant animals including primates. Indeed the wonder drug, aspirin, is too toxic for human consumption based on animal research.

What are we to believe - videotaped evidence of widespread heinous lab animal abuse or unsubstantiated rhetoric that all is well from those with a vested interest in animal use? The answer is obvious.

The relevance of animal research to modern medicine can be summed up by examining AIDS. Diagnostic and therapeutic interventions have been developed and introduced to critically ill individuals with lifesaving results, all without years of animal research delays. Since our lives are placed on the line by animal research, we have every right to question its validity. We also have the right to expect factual responses, not hysterical propaganda.

Ron Allison, M.D., Amherst, NY (Response to letter of May 20 2000 extolling animal research and criticizing PETA in Buffalo News, June 1 2000).

In order to practice their 'gentle art of healing', the doctors require millions of animals for torture, on whose suffering their so-called 'science' is based. But when it dawned on some people that the system was rotten, and clear-sighted individuals fought against it, the doctors also saw that their livelihood was being threatened. Their medical policy is primarily the line of withholding information...

The prerequisite for today's medical policy is naturally the currently predominant system of medicine. The sick are the source of income, therefore it is necessary for sick people to be there, yes, it proves advantageous if one makes the people artificially sick.

Hundreds and thousands of perjuries have been committed via falsified scientific reports. I say this, because I can prove it. By means of these the high standing of the doctors is forced on the public. Damage thus comes about as a result of vaccination, and is continuously proven. But it is portrayed in a very toned down form by official sources. Since 1930 many doctors have declared themselves opposed to vaccination.

But the vaccination law continues to prevail. In many German States there is compulsory vaccination, although even the supporters of vaccination were originally against compulsion. In 1929 it so happened that a father abducted his own child three times so as to save it from the persecution of those who wanted to use force in order to vaccinate the child. But the fourth time the officials succeeded in taking the child for vaccination. They dragged it out of the car. After the vaccination, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) set in, and within eight days the child was dead! In this way vaccination has at times become a legally-sanctioned, judicial murder, committed by custodians of the law. Vaccination can, as has been proven, cause encephalitis...

Dr. med. Steintl, International Medical Policy. Berlin, 1938.

Barn-yard medicine has not given us any vaccination procedure that really protects against illness, but many that endanger the body, that even bring death.

Dr. med. Guttman, extract from Biologische Heilkunst, 1932/10.

We wish to know when the medical profession will unite in expressing its dissatisfaction at the way they are being misled by the published results of experiments on animals in physiological and pharmacological laboratories.

Editorial, Medical Times, April 1937.

The objection that one must carry out animal experiments in order not to have to make any experiments on humans also does not accord with the truth, for the cruel experiments on animals have merely provided the foundation for the belief that one can also make reprehensible experiments on human beings.

The bad thing is that they have performed the experiments on people, especially on children, of poor folk, to whom they transmitted tuberculosis, diphtheria, syphilis and other horrible diseases, and did not even shrink back from conducting experiments on dying children. Several thousands were involved in these experiments, often with the most serious consequences for the 'guinea pigs' concerned.

The fact that many doctors are hardly any longer aware of their unsocial or really criminal way of thinking is apparent from the report of a doctor who wrote as follows about his attempts to inject smallpox: 'Perhaps I should have first conducted experiments on animals, but the suitable animals, i.e. calves, were difficult to obtain and to keep due to the cost, and so, with the kind permission of the Senior Physician, I began my experiments on children at the General Foundling Hospital'.

Dr. med. Albert Eckhard, Hanover: Tierrecht und Tierschutz, No. 9, 20 September 1932.

Facts incontrovertible in the [animal] laboratory are applied to clinical medicine in a manner quite unwarranted. The best examples are the indiscriminate use of hormones and the ready acceptance of the biased blurbs of [animal] research propagated by commercial travellers.

Dr. Ffrangcon Roberts, British Medical Journal, June 16, 1945, p.848.

Vivisection appeals to the basest instincts of fear and cowardice and is rooted in the unjust principle that 'might makes right' and that 'the end justifies the means', thus permitting any cruelty on the tyrant's plea of necessity.

Before the bar of human justice, vivisection stands condemned on three main counts: cruelty to animals, uselessness to Man, and obstruction on the path of true knowledge.

Dr. M. Beddow Baily, MD, IRCP, Member Royal College of Surgeons, in More Spotlights on Vivisection (London, Pergamon Press, 1958).

There really exists no logical basis for translating the results of animal experiments to man.

Dr. L. Goldberg, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. Quantitative Method in Human Pharmacology and Therapeutics (London: Pergamon Press, 1959).

Even if a chemical is found to be nontoxic in animal studies, the safety of the chemical [for humans] cannot be assured.

B. S. Shane, Environ. Sci. Technol., 23 (1989), p.1193.

I cannot over-emphasize the fallacies inherent in the efforts to apply directly to man the results of animal experiments in the field of hormones.

The testimony of Don Carlos Hines, MD, before the Delaney Committee of the House of Representatives, January 31, 1952.

Research is subordinated (not to a long-term social benefit but) to an immediate commercial profit. Currently, disease (not health) is one of the major sources of profit for the pharmaceutical industry, and the doctors are willing agents of those profits.

Dr. Pierre Bosquet, Nouvelle Critique, May 1961.

At the time when millions are starving in the world, and our economy is in great trouble, Congress is allocating billions of dollars annually in grants for 'basic', no-goal research on living animals. Careers in torture are as financially rewarding as they are morally bankrupt. Reports in the medical journals recorded by the experimenters themselves are indisputable indictments of their gross inhumanity.

Barbara Schultz, a member of the Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz's advisory committee on the treatment of animals in New York State, writing in Newsday, July 12, 1974.

The medical profession is not informed, or, rather, it is instructed almost exclusively by the journals and brochures from the [animal] laboratories, and thus by advertising.

A certain messianic belief in progress has persuaded us that an increased use of drugs represents man's victory over disease, a proof of his power, a sign of progress. Whence comes this blind trust, when intelligence should surely lead us rather towards mistrust? It stems from an illusion which has been imposed on us by the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry, by a giant brewing- house of poisons that makes billions out of it. The guilt for all this lies with the powers- that-be in the Public Health Department, the Government Ministry and the health insurance associations, whose apathy and negligence have resulted in the sanctioning of no less than 11,000 medicaments (in France), although only a couple out of 100 are of any provable worth, as has been confirmed by the World Health Organization.

The doctors can't see further than their own noses. They have become convinced by the laboratory-financed medical literature that medicines have turned them into demi-gods, and that attacks on the pharmaceutical industry mean attacks on medicine.

When the people finally discover the cause of their illnesses, the sale of medicaments will abruptly drop. But we must first get them to understand it...

'The Medicine Bluff'. Interview in the French weekly Paris-Match, 13 December, 1975, with Dr. Henri Pradal, a specialist in pharmaceutical toxicology.

Millions of people have been vaccinated with the polio vaccine, which contains the cancer- forming SV-40 virus originally found in monkeys. It is possible that it will take 20 years or still longer before the possible damaging effects of this virus come to light.

Professor J. Clausen of the Institute of Preventive Medicine, University of Odense, March 1973.

Various species of animals react differently to the same drug. Not only do the variations in the metabolism of a drug make it difficult to extrapolate results of animal experiments to man but they create a serious obstacle to the development of new therapeutic drugs.

Dr. Barnard B. Brodie in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1976.

Man has developed awesome weapons of destruction, capable of annihilating our entire planet at the push of a button. But there are also other kinds of destructions. Vivisection is one of them. It causes not only severe damages in the biological area, but also untold spiritual damages.

Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people. They are senseless, one and all. As if an animal-test could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different.

If we adopt a correct medical concept, based on an understanding of the vital requirements of the cells; if we understand the sense and purpose of the organism's natural reactions, then we renounce all animal experimentation. Then we recognize that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions; that it responds in its own particular, individual way to the stimuli and attacks from the environment, that it disposes of peculiar faculties of defense and regeneration and self-healing powers.

I understand that some animal protectors advocate the adoption of computers, data banks, tests with cells and tissue cultures as substitute methods of research in order to reduce the number of experimental animals. But this is no solution. It would only reduce the amount of animal and human suffering unsubstantially, and would not put a legal end to the experimenters' sadism, whose persistance no amount of official concealment and media complicity can eliminate.

Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. But instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed.

Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D. Psy., of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, 13th District, at the ILDAV conference of June 19, 1989.

Orthodox medicine condones ill-conduct and seeks to restore health without rectifying it. True health cannot be attained in this manner. Vivisection has no philosophy, no ethics, and no width of vision. It will, therefore, disappear in the course of time.

Bertrand P. Allinson, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.

In my opinion there exists a conspiracy of the medical-pharmaceutical interests on an international basis to eradicate alternative health (not disease) care from the people of the world with a total disregard for the health and life of the people. I feel that the major motivation of this potentially destructive scheme is the desire to make money and I call the condition of this utter sickness of man - 'The Greed Disease'.

Here in the United States I observe the conspiracy is interwoven with the American Medical Association, the federal government, especially the Federal Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Pharmaceutical Advertising Council, and the entire media including television networks, radio networks, newspapers, magazines and book publishers. The media domination prevents the majority of people from being conscious of these negative forces and focuses their minds on the propaganda that alternative health-care is 'quackery'. However, the Office of Technological Assessment reported to the Congress in the late 1970's that only 10-20% of the methods utilized in allopathic (official, orthodox) medicine are proven safe and efficacious. Quackery is defined as using unproven methods for a profit. So who are the real quacks, anyway?

Much of the enlightenment of the extremely cruel vivisection portion of this cartel is revealed by the writings of Swiss medical historian Hans Ruesch in the books Slaughter of the Innocent and Naked Empress, which have both suffered international suppression (by the corporate mass-media and the Medical Power). Vivisection is a paramount symptom of the Greed Disease and of the inhumane, unscientific, ignorant individuals who perpetuate it throughout the world. Animals are not human beings and do not react in a similar fashion to a drug. What might be beneficial in an animal might be lethal to the human, and conversely. Where is the logic to transfer information from animal experimentation to human usage of toxic chemicals? It is in the pocket-books of the members of the conspiracy - the Greed Disease.

Roy Kupsinel, M.D., medical magazine editor in Oviedo, FL 32765, November 22, 1986.

It is incomprehensible how parties with vested interests repeatedly assert the necessity and purposefulness of animal experiments, paying no regard to the views of many who think otherwise, and at the same time conceal the fact that the defence used against claims for damages resulting from side-effects caused by extensively used animal-tested medicaments and chemical substances is precisely that the animal-test results could not be applied to the human organism.

Dr. med. Werner Hartinger, Specialist in General and Accident Surgery, in a lecture entitled Vivisection - False Path of Medicine?, on October 4, 1985, at the Kunsthaus in Zurich.

Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio, etc., actually may be seeding humans with animal RNA to form pro-viruses...which under proper conditions become activated and cause a variety of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosus, Parkinson's disease and cancer. Spare me this 'medical miracle'.

Barbara Bouyet in Fur 'n Feathers, March 1987, citing Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers University.

A drug that is tested on animals will have completely different effects in man. There are uncounted examples that could be cited - a single Amanita Phalloides mushroom can wipe out a whole human family, but is a healthfood for the rabbit, one of the favorite laboratory animals...

Dr. med. Karlheinz Blank, West Germany, in Der Tierschutz, Nr. 62, 1985, Journal of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierschutz.

It is the outrageous lie of the supporters of vivisection, a lie serious in its consequences, that animal experiments take place for the good of mankind. The opposite is the case: animal experiments only have an alibi function for the purpose of obtaining money, power and titles. Not one single animal experiment has ever succeeded in prolonging or improving, let alone saving, the life of even one single person.

Paper published by Dr. med. Heide Evers, D-7800 Freiburg, 1982.

Truth is usually simple. Yet the AIDS virus theory has entered a realm of scientific obfuscation. Our addiction to animal research provides us with faulty information about AIDS and drugs intended for humans, who differ physiologically from other species.

Laurence E. Badgley, M.D., July 1988, in his Foreword to AIDS, Inc., by John Rappoport, Human Energy Press, San Bruno, CA.

A preventative vaccine for AIDS is unlikely to be found, a leading world expert on the disease told this newspaper in an exclusive interview this week...In the paper, 'Crossing the Species Barrier', which he was presenting yesterday in London, Dr. Seale stressed that most viruses that affected one species did not affect another species. Dogs did not have cat diseases, and vice versa.

The fact that the AIDS virus has such a structure is indicative to Dr. Seale that it is not a natural virus, but one induced artificially in the laboratory, perhaps accidentally, by biologists using new techniques in virology, in which monkeys are used...'It could not have happened naturally', Dr. Seale said. 'It has been artificially altered'

Excerpts from an article in the Mid-Devon Advertiser incorporating Mid-Devon Times, Dec. 2, 1988.

Experts often assert that it is senseless to compare a tumour which has been artificially provoked in an animal with a tumour that has spontaneously developed in a human being.

Dr. Peter Schmidsberger, Medical Correspondent of the German weekly Bunte, No. 21, 1982.

If there had been no vivisection and reliance had been placed on clinical research and observation for finding out about the human body; and if there had been a real study of the human being as a person rather than as a machine, we would doubtless not now be threatened by science with such monstrous scientific goals as head transplants, deep-freezing of human beings and indefinite prolongation of life, radical alteration of the human mind by drugs and other means, remote control of humans by means of electrodes implanted in the brain, the creation of man-animal chimeras, etc...

The world would not be saddened and threatened by the increasing number of scientists and technologists who are being conditioned by their laboratory employment to callous disregard of animal suffering, leading inevitably to callous disregard of human suffering. There would not now be a growing number of people greatly distressed by the appalling cruelties which they know go on in laboratories. There would not now be a world-wide epidemic of torture where techniques are used similar to those that have been used on animals for many years. There would not now be a predominantly experimental medicine in the western world instead of a clinical medicine. There would be less disease and greater happiness.

And perhaps this planet would not now be in greater danger of destruction due to cruel and greedy exploitation of its treasures by its human inhabitants than at any time since the world began.

Dr. J.D. Whittall, M.D., People and Animals, London, 1981.

Species are rarely chosen for scientific reasons, but are used because they are available, economical and easy to manage.

A. Palmer, 'Design of subprimate animal studies' in Handbook of Teratology, vol. 4, ed. by J. Wilson and F. C. Fraser (New York: Plenum Press, 1978), 219-220.

Consider the...claim that the dramatic increase in lifespan is directly attributable to medical intervention based on animal research - many medical historians disagree.

Death rates attributable to tuberculosis, pneumonia, influenza, scarlet fever, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and typhoid fever had dropped dramatically before the advent of vaccinations and chemotherapeutic treatments for these diseases.

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science, (London: Routledge, 1996), p.10.

The problem is this: once we recognize that different species react to drugs in different ways, how can we know, before they are tested on humans, which of the animal test(s) to believe? Which animal tests indicate a risk to humans and which ones are irrelevant?

Animal testing precedes human trials, but if we do not know whether the animal testing is relevant to the problem in humans, it will lose even minimal predictive value...the continued use of broad spectrum multi-strain/multi-species testing vividly shows that researchers do not actually know which laboratory results can be legitimately applied to humans.

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996), p.27.

Some attempts have been made to model atherosclerosis in some animal species and to account for hypertension and increasing age, but it is clear that these circumstances do not reproduce the human condition.

D. Wiebers, H. Adams and J. Whisnant, 'Animal models of stroke: are they relevant to human disease?', Stroke, 21, 1990, p.1.

Most of the approximately one hundred compounds that reached some stage of clinical trials in the last 25 years did so because they could 'qualify' on these tests. Gamfexine was the first drug that failed to show a correlation between animal tests and human trials. Its effect on cats was exceptional but it worsened the clinical status of human patients, two of whom had to be prevented from committing suicide. Gamfexine was first in a long line of failures.

Journal Clin. Psychiatry, 44:5 [sec 2], 1983, 40-48.

Animal models have fallen short of reproducing the human disease, particularly in mimicking the spontaneous and persistent air obstruction that characterizes asthma.

Dr K. F. Cheung, 'Usefulness of animal models in asthma research', in European Respiratory Review, 1995, 5:29, p.184.

It has been obvious for some time that there is generally no evolutionary basis behind the particular drug metabolizing ability of a particular species. Indeed, among rodents and primates, zoologically closely related species exhibit markedly different patterns of metabolism.

J. Caldwell, 'Comparative aspects of detoxification in mammals', in Basis of Detoxification, ed. by W. Jakoby, vol.1 (New York: Academic Press, 1980), p,106.

False positives and false negatives abound. Once one has established that a drug is a teratogen for man, it is usually possible to find, retrospectively, a suitable [animal] model. But trying to predict human toxicity - which is after all what the screening game is all about - is quite another matter.

Dr. L. Lasagna, Drug Use in Pregnancy (Boston: Adis Health Science Press, 1984).

Many of the psychotropic drugs were discovered by chance when they were administered for one indication and observed to be helping in respect of an entirely different condition. The history of the development of both the major antidepressants and the antipsychotic drugs points up to the fact that major scientific discoveries can evolve as a consequence of clinical investigations rather than deductions from basic animal research.

J. M. Davis, 'Antipsychotic Drugs', in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, ed. Kaplan and Sadock (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1985).

In the case of animal experimentation...violent acts are admired (published and replicated) and the actors honoured (tenured and funded). Astonishing cruelty to animals can be legitimated in this way. As Roger Ulrich, who pioneered work on pain-elicited aggression in the rat said: 'I ended up doing things to animals that really made me sick. But I rationalized it. I thought science could no anything, that it could solve our social problems.

Ulrich stopped doing animal research on the grounds that it is 'a repugnant and socially irrelevant practice'. Unfortunately for animals, many thousands of his colleagues have not followed suit...

When animal experimentation is criticised, students, teachers and researchers alike fall back on the two most common justifications: (1)experimentation on live animals is necessary to human welfare, and (2)researchers follow strict guidelines that minimize animal suffering. But what is 'human welfare'? Better poisons, better chemicals, better cosmetics, better drugs, better behaviour, better brains, better genes? Acceptable levels of unacceptable carcinogenic materials that have invaded everyone's home?...Making babies in petri dishes? Clones? Human hybrids? Genetically engineered lifeforms? Millions of animals suffer and are killed each year for all this 'welfare'.

As far as 'guidelines' are concerned, the very fact these are needed indicates that researchers are unable to determine the limits of humane treatment and regulate themselves accordingly. Ultimately, the desecrator of animal life ends up desecrating all life including his own, because he reduces life to discrete mechanisms of measurable quantity.

Andree Collard with Joyce Contrucci, Rape of the Wild (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), pp.68,70.

Once one allows that animals are part of the moral community...then one's act of inflicting pain and suffering upon them or killing them must be justified...

In my view pain is pain, as much evil for an animal as for a human, and I agree with animal liberationists that it is a form of speciesism or discrimination to pretend otherwise.

R. Frey, 'The ethics of the search for benefits: Experimentation in medicine', in Principles of Health Care Ethics, ed. by R. Gillon (Chichester: John Wiley, 1994), pp.1068-69.

Vivisection is dictated by convenience, not science. It is a strange, unrealistic mind that accepts a genetically engineered moron as a replica of human physiology, or at least one that pertains to it.

It may be a feat of engineering. but it has no place on the meaningful study of human disease, and its treatment, for it bears even less resemblance to us than its unfortunate predecessors do...

Submitting animals to laboratory tests, often without pain-killing drugs (68 per cent of tests at the last count), is clearly an even greater stress factor. This, in itself, invalidates all data obtained under such circumstances.

Dr David Johnson, MRCS, IRCP, MF (Hons.), D.(Obst.), RCOG., 'Animal-orientated medicine: The be-all or the end-all?', DLRM newsletter, No.11, 2004.

Researchers have transferred a working gene (known as CFTR) into the surface airway cells of laboratory animals. This success inspired 11 human trials.

But any expectation that these tests would quickly demonstrate therapeutic benefits has dwindled as researchers have run into problems in transferring sufficient quantities of CFTR gene into patients' cells. In addition, the virus vector they are using as the transfer agent has provoked an immune reaction in some patients.

Eliot Marshall, 'The trouble with vectors', Science (25 August 1995), 260, p.1052.

The lack of correlation between toxicity data in animals and adverse effects in humans is well known.

A. Goth, Medical Pharmacology: Principles and Concepts, 10th edn, (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1981), p.37.

In a study that spanned over ten years and has not yet been repeated, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began in 1976 to follow all the new medications it had released for side effects.

In that study the FDA found that out of 198 new medications, 102 (52 per cent) were either recalled or relabeled due to side effects not predicted in animal tests.

J. S. Greek, DVM, and Dr Ray Greek, What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals? (Trafford, 2004), p.17, referring to GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review, Postapproval Risks, 1976-1985.

Encouraging results in rodents have been found in countless cancer studies which ended up failing in humans.

Forbes, 28 December 1999, p.190.

Experiments are duplicated sometimes because of ineptitude. Scientists sometimes don't know what's already been done, Or, because they can't think of new experiments, they repeat old ones.

Professor Joen Neilands, University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley Campus Weekly, 25 October 1982).

Discrepancies have been reported several times between results observed in classic animal models and those described in humans with Parkinson's Disease, and it would seem probable that such contradistinctions can be ascribed to the fact that animal models do not, as yet, reproduce the continuous evolution of the human disease.

Erwan Bezard, et al, Review in the Neurosciences, 1998:9:71-90.

Among experienced public health officials, it is well-known that you can 'prove' anything with animal studies. This is because there are so many different animal model systems and each system gives different results.

Dr. Irwin D. Bross, former Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institue (The AV, November 1983).

From a scientific standpoint, what is pertinent is that what are called 'animal model systems' in cancer research have been a total failure. The tens of millions of animals killed in the mass- screening for new cancer drugs died in vain. The hundreds of millions spent by the National Cancer Institute on this futile effort were diverted from genuine cancer research that might have provided useful drugs.

When NCI enthusiastically supported the mass-screening using animals there was plenty of good evidence that the mass-screening program would fail. There was almost no factual evidence to suggest that it was going to succeed. The money was spent and the animals were killed for two main reasons. First, it was a highly profitable undertaking for certain medical schools and research institutes that were incapable of doing any genuine cancer research. Second, it was sustained by a superstitious belief in a grossly unscientific notion: that mice are miniature men...

Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double talk in technical jargons...From the standpoint of current scientific theory of cancer, the whole mystique of animal model systems is hardly more than superstitious nonsense...The virtue of animal-model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system that will 'prove' a point. Fraudulent methods of argument never die and rarely fade away. They are too useful to promoters...

The moral is that animal-model systems kill not only animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer.

Dr. Irwin D.J. Bross, PhD, Director of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Buffalo, NY, in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, November 1982.