"Apparently, the animal researchers are content to let
children die from a new drug just as long as it was first
developed for and tested on animals. But this is well
known already."
Those eager to a find magic bullets be aware!
Inter-species testing, often callously, cited by the drug
pushers to advance their agendas is often pretentious at
worst and misguided at best. The following 18 drugs are
just some examples from many.
Is it any wonder that the Medical system is leading cause
of death and injury?
UNSAFE FOR HUMANS
The following, taken from Dr Ray and Jean Greek's book*,
are just some examples of pharmaceutical drugs which have
been deemed safe for human use after extensive animal
testing, but which were later found to cause serious side
effects.
•Amrinone: Use of this
drug for treating heart failure led to 20 per cent of
patients developing thrombocytopenia (a lack of blood
cells needed for clotting), despite a comprehensive
program of animal studies in mice, rats, hamsters, guinea
pigs, dogs and rhesus monkeys. Some of these patients
died.
•Birth control pills:
These are known to cause life-threatening blood clots in
some women, yet scientists have still not been able to
reproduce this finding in animals. In fact, dog testing
predicted that the pill would decrease the likelihood of
clotting.
•Chloramphenicol: This
antibiotic caused life-threatening anaemia in humans.
Chloramphenicol is an example of a drug whose effects vary
from species to species: dogs do well with it, cats die
from it, cows tolerate it but horses do not. It is so
toxic to susceptible humans that its use has been outlawed
in animals used for food. The tiny amount consumed from
ingesting a hamburger made from a treated cow will cause
death in such a person unless they receive a bone marrow
transplant.
•Clioquinol: This
anti-diarrhoeal passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and
rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world
in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and
paralysis in humans.
•Diethylstilbestrol:
This synthetic oestrogen was designed to prevent
miscarriage, but it did just the opposite by increasing
the rate of spontaneous abortions, premature births and
neo-natal deaths. No human trials were done; all the
safety data were collected from animals.
•Eraldin: This heart
drug was withdrawn in 1975 after causing serious side
effects in an estimated 7,000 victims, 23 of whom died. It
had been tested for six years in mice, rats, dogs and
monkeys and when introduced on the market was
"particularly notable for the thoroughness with which its
toxicity was studied in animals, to the satisfaction of
the authorities".[10] Even long after the drug was
withdrawn, scientists failed to reproduce these results in
animals.
•Floxin: This
antibiotic progressed through animal testing, only to
cause seizures and psychosis when used by humans.
•Isuprel: A medication
used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to
humans in the amounts recommended based on animal studies.
In Great Britain alone, 3,500 asthmatics died from using
the medication.
•Manoplax: This heart
drug, which had been tested on rats, mice, rabbits, cats
and guinea-pigs, was withdrawn worldwide in 1993 after
analysis of patients showed that those taking it were at
increased risk of hospitalisation and/or death.
•Methysergide: This
treatment for migraine led to severe scarring of the
heart, kidneys and blood vessels in the abdomen, although
scientists have been unable to reproduce these effects in
animals.
•Opren: This treatment
for rheumatism and arthritis killed 61 people and caused
3,500 adverse reactions. Withdrawn in 1982, the drug had
been tested on monkeys and other animals for nine years
with no adverse side effects.
•Phenylpropanolamine (PPA):
This drug, found in many common cold and flu remedies, was
banned by the FDA in the US after it was linked to causing
between 200 and 500 strokes in young women a year.
•Primacor: This
medication, given when the heart is not pumping enough
blood, worked well in rats but increased deaths in humans
by 30 per cent.
•Ritodrine: This drug,
prescribed to avert premature labour, induced pulmonary
oedema (fluid in the lungs, causing breathing difficulties
and possibly death).
•Suprofen: This
arthritis drug was withdrawn from the market when patients
suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release,
researchers said this about the animal tests:
"...excellent safety profile. No cardiac, renal [kidney]
or central nervous system [side effects] in any
species."[11]
•Tamoxifen: This drug,
used to treat and prevent breast cancer in women, caused
liver tumours in rats but not in mice or hamsters.[12] The
drug has been shown to be harmless to the developing
foetus of rabbits and monkeys, but to cause bone
abnormalities in rat foetuses.[13] One of the side effects
is nausea and vomiting, but this was not predicted in
animal studies, even though high doses were tested in dogs
-- the species considered most predictive of vomiting in
humans.[14] The drug has also been implicated in uterine
cancer, blood clots, memory loss, absence of periods, and
eye damage such as cataracts.[15]
•Zomax: This arthritis
drug killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer
References:
[10] Nature 1 April 1982, pp. 387-90.
[11] Spriet-Pourra, C. and M. Auriche, Drug
Withdrawal from Sale, PJB Publications (Scrip Report),
1988, 2nd edition.
[12] Lancet 1992; 340:1145-1147.
[13] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
Monographs on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals to Humans, 1996, pp. 253-635.
[14] Weatherall, M., Safety Testing of New Drugs:
Laboratory Predictions and Clinical Performance,
Academic Press, 1984, pp. 157-158.
[15] See Breast Cancer Action website,
www.bcaction.org; also
Christiane Northrup's book, Women's Bodies, Women's
Wisdom, Piatkus, UK, 1998.
Extracted form, a must read, Nexus article: The Human
Cost of Animal Experiments
*
What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals: Medical
Research for the Twenty-First Century (Paperback)
by Jean Swingle Greek, Ray C. Greek
The Greeks' newest contribution to the growing debate
regarding the most ethical use of limited resources for
medical research will be unpopular with the animal-model
community. `Unpopular' may be an understatement; they are
going to hate it.
Whenever the question of using animals in research comes
up you can be certain that the animal researchers and
their supporters will accuse you of hating children if you
criticize their cruelties or even their science. "What
else do you suggest?" is their common challenge, "should
we experiment or little children, or just let them die?"
Indeed, it is in their financial interests to cast any
critic as a callous lout. But now, the answers are much
clearer.
In What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment On Animals?
the Greeks explain the failures and risks of basing
medicines for humans on the results of experiments on
other species. Apparently, the animal researchers are
content to let children die from a new drug just as long
as it was first developed for and tested on animals. But
this is well known already.
The new ground in the Greeks newest book is the
compilation of modern research techniques that really are
providing new insights into human disease and offering
potential new cures. Readers are given a tour of truly
modern medical research that is grounded in a thorough
appreciation of the underlying genetics behind disease and
our individual responses to drug therapies.
Unlike much of the traditional antivivisectionist
literature, the Greeks write from the perspective that we
have learned something about human biology from studying
animals even if we could have learned the same things in
other ways. More importantly, they point out that we no
longer wonder what a heart does, and that today we are
seeking to understand the roles of the proteins coded for
by each organism's unique genetic code. The subtleties
that account for differences between species are the same
subtleties that explain why a rat, a dog, and a human will
each respond differently at the molecular level to any
particular drug.
But, the real value in the book is not its power to point
out the failures and ugly profiteering of the animal
modelers, but to give the reader hope by pointing out the
growing number of research efforts underway based on
modern science. The reliance on the most modern of methods
accounts for the fact that an ever-growing number of
researchers interested in curing and preventing human
disease have turned to non-animal methods based on human
biology.
For anyone with an interest in leading edge biomedical
science, this book will probably become a well-worn
reference.
Reviewer: Rick Bogle
