ANIMAL RESEARCH IS FLEXIBLE: CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING!
creating legal alibis for companies when their products damage people.
Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Bufallo, NY.
"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 jargon.....The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollar 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 which will "prove" a point.......The moral is that animal model systems not only kill 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."
”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. & Margot Stiller M.D., 1976.
“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....” Dr. James G. Gallagher, 1964, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories.
”Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect.” Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.
THE UNRELIABILITY OF ANIMAL RESEARCH MEANS DANGEROUS CHEMICALS ARE PUT INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT & FOOD.
”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. A+nd 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.” Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.
VIVISECTION MISLEADS SURGICAL PROGRESS
”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 & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery’s modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.
“I have been a surgeon for 51 years. I am still performing operations daily, and can state that in NO way whatever do I owe my dexterity to animal experimentation. Like every good surgeon, I first learned my trade as an assistant to other surgeons. If I had had to learn surgery through animal experiments I would have been an incompetent in this field, just as I consider those of my colleagues to be incompetent who say that they have learned surgery through animal experimentation. It’s true that there are always advocates of vivisection who say that one must first practise on animals in order to become a surgeon. That is a dishonest statement, made by people who reap financial benefit from it.” Prof.Dr. Ferdinando de Leo, 1986, Professor of Pathological and Clinical Surgery at the University of Naples.
”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, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.
”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, Fellow American College of Surgeons, Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.
The above quotes are from the book, "1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection -- a Growing Trend", (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989. 288 pages. See the web-sites CAFMR www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr and Guardians: www.werple.net.au/~antiviv for more information.
None.
