Nexus - 0214 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

tion ag under the brand name of Norvedan. The company using animals. Each individual species of animal has a unique submitted cooked up data to the Government in the name of Dr genetic make-up. Any genetic differences predetermine massive Harcio Sampei, chief of plastic surgery at Nippon University. variations in histology (structure, composition and function of tis- The good doctor had accepted 2.4 million Yen in cash from the sues), biochemistry (chemistry of living organisms), morpholo, company in return for permission to use his name. More dis- (structure of organisms), physiology (function of living organisms), turbing are similar allegations on another Nippon Chemiphar and other species characteristics. Because each animal species is product. The company denies cooking data on this second different, substances that are tested on them for ‘safety’ and ‘effec- roduct. But the worrying aspect of the second scandal is that a tiveness’ will have a different effect on each individual species. ormer company researcher claims to have submitted a written This has been amply demonstrated by Professor Pietro Croce, for- report alleging fraud in drug testing by Nippon Chemiphar fo mer animal experimenter, and world-renowned author and medical the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry; Ministry officials, he researcher, in his revealing treatise, Vivisection or Science—A alleges, chose to ignore the report Yapan Times, 23, 24, 25 Choice to Make ® (1991). November 1982). phasis added.]* Morphine sends cats into a frenzy of excitement, yet it calms and anaesthetises humans. The amount of opium that can be eaten with- In Whose Interests Are Drugs Tested? out discomfort by the hedgehog mate keep the most hardened , The testing procedures of drugs are primarily performed to ensure —_ addict happy for a fortnight. Arsenic kills humans but is harmless to the approval and marketing of these substances; despite the fact they guinea-pigs, chickens and monkeys. Chloroform, used successfully are usually unsafe and ineffective. If drug companies were truly _for decades in human surgery, is poisonous for dogs. Digitalis, ethical and responsible, the vast majority of drugs would not have —_ which dangerously raises the blood pressure of dogs, is used to been allowed on the market in the first place. lower blood pressure for humans.” the list can be lengthened at West Germany's prestigious weekly, Der Spiegel (24 June 1985), _ will, but these few examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that carried a most revealing article titled, "How The Pharmaceutical there could not be a more unreliable test for new drugs than animal Industry Bought Bonn". The article, which featured on the front experimentation. age and covered several pages, contributes to the real motives There are five basic stages in which a drug has an effect when hind drug testing. In essence, the article could just as well apply taken internally. These are: absorption into the bloodstream, distri- to the United States, Britain and most other industrial nations. The _ bution to the site of action, mechanism of action, metabolism, and following is a brief excerpt: excretion. Considering that people of different sexes, ages, health and genetic make-up may react quite dif- As a rule, the drug companies didn't ferently, it is obvious that other species pour millions into the coffers of the often react very differently. Even a minor political Pontes but gave money to zg many of the most common or change, repeated at each stage, can accu- individual politicians and public offi- ee 5 us mulate, resulting in a major change of cials selected among those that deter- life-threatening side-effects cannot effect. ‘One of the most important factors mine the health policy. With the hel A * is the sj and pattern of metabolism, or of os hep. employ, they be predicted by animal tests. the ty * a =~ is broken down acquired uniquely favorable marketin; ij ‘ by the body.” Scientific reports show that conditions that would insure thent ce animals cannot let the vutetinn 4 drug metabolism between durable profits. The pharmaceutical experimenter know if they are species is the rule rather than the excep- industry, which is worth billions, has ff % hi d h . tion. boelt up, aL] bps the paeeEne, sultering from eac acne, AMNESIA, “Toxic drug effects not predicted by ani- i. ae _; rece et nl nausea, depression and other mal testing may be teen in people if their forth depend on two conditions: evi- psychological disturbances. Tnceaniite pasta Ercan lnuger anpane dence oi their ‘efficacity' and of their The anti-inflammatory drugs phenylbuta- ‘innocuity', provided by chemo-physi- cal tests, animal experiments, and a clinical assays and opinions. [Emphasis added.] zone and oxyphenbutazone, which have been responsible for an estimated 10,000 deaths worldwide,™ takes 72 hours for people to metabolise. _ ; t However, phenylbutazone is metabolised by rhesus monkeys, dogs, Many of the politicians and public officials who contributed to rats and rabbits in eight, six, six, and three hours, respectively.” the acceptance of these guidelines were named in the article, and the =~ Qxyphenbutazone takes only half an hour for dogs to metabolise. bribes they pocketed were itemised. Another fundamental problem that makes animal testing a flawed s . process concems the etiology (cause) of the disease that the drug Fraudulent Animal Testing under test is supposed to treat. Because animals don't suffer the The most blatantly fraudulent procedure of drug testing is the Same diseases as humans, experimenters attempt to artificially re- testing of these substances using animal models—a practice often Create spontaneous human diseases (naturally occurring diseases termed ‘vivisection'. To begin with, many of the most common or _ that arise from within) in healthy animals, and then they use these life-threatening side-effects cannot be predicted by animal tests. ‘models’ to attempt to determine the efficacy (effectiveness) of the For instance, animals cannot let the experimenter know if they are drug in question. This is totally illogical because the artificially re- suffering from headache, amnesia, nausea, depression and other created animal disease can in no way approximate a naturally occur- psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, some blood disor- ting human disease (nor of the same animal species for that matter). ders, skin lesions and many central nervous system effects are even Once a disease is ‘re-created’, it is artificial and is no longer the orig- more serious examples that cannot be demonstrated by animal mod- _ial, natural disease. Sometimes it is possible to re-create some of els.* the symptoms of the disease but never the disease itself. The only . . , 4 exception is infectious diseases, but animals do not get human infec- According to one of the world's best known toxicologists, eerie and we do not get theirs”: 8 Professor Gerhardt Zbinden, from Zurich's Institute of Toxicology - " = 2 i i . : As well as the routine subacute and chronic toxicity tests (which lst ave acon hora ay cannot be ena, involve poking by sibs being en in nna guaies experiment."” Professor Zbinden has shown that of the 45 most com tae ipeleond aaa = Tm oo ee sa tn common adverse reactions only three may possibly be predicted, ~ . - be a and of the remaining 42, “only in exceptional cases can they be pre- er of time) and teratogenicity (ability to cause foetal dicted from routine toxicologic tests”." - Fraudulent Acute Toxicity Tests eete Gienes The LDSO is an acute toxicity test designed to indicate the human Apart from the effects that cannot be demonstrated in animals, 4 4 . another very fundamental problem exists with testing substances lethal dose that results from accidental or intentional overdose. The tion ag under the brand name of Norvedan. The compan submitted cooked up data to the Government in the name of Dr Harcio Sampei, chief of plastic surgery at Nippon University. The good doctor had accepted 2.4 million Yen in cash from the company in return for permission to use his name. More dis- turbing are similar allegations on another Nippon Chemiphar product. The company denies cooking data on this second roduct. But the worrying aspect of the second scandal is that a ormer company researcher claims to have submitted a written report alleging fraud in dru toating by iy Chemiphar to the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry; Ministry officials, he alleges, chose to ignore the report (Japan Times, 23, 24, 25 November 1982). ert added.]"* In Whose Interests Are Drugs Tested? The testing procedures of drugs are primarily performed to ensure the approval and marketing of these substances; despite the fact they are usually unsafe and ineffective. If drug companies were truly ethical and responsible, the vast majority of drugs would not have been allowed on the market in the first place. West Germany's prestigious weekly, Der Spiegel (24 June 1985), carried a most revealing article titled, "How The Pharmaceutical Industry Bought Bonn". The article, which featured on the front age and covered several pages, contributes to the real motives Behind drug testing. In essence, the article could just as well apply to the United States, Britain and most other industrial nations. The following is a brief excerpt: Many of the politicians and public officials who contributed to the acceptance of these guidelines were named in the article, and the bribes ey pocketed were itemised. Fraudulent Animal Testing The most blatantly fraudulent procedure of drug testing is the testing of these substances using animal models—a practice often termed ‘vivisection’. To begin with, many of the most common or life-threatening side-effects cannot be predicted by animal tests. For instance, animals cannot let the experimenter know if they are suffering from headache, amnesia, nausea, depression and other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, some blood disor- ders, skin lesions and many central nervous system effects are even more serious examples that cannot be demonstrated by animal mod- els."* According to one of the world's best known toxicologists, Professor Gerhardt Zbinden, from Zurich's Institute of Toxicology, "Most adverse reactions that occur in man cannot be demonstrated, anticipated or avoided by the routine subacute and chronic toxicity experiment."” Professor Zbinden has shown that of the 45 most common adverse reactions only three may possibly be predicted, and of the remaining 42, "only in exceptional cases can they be pre- dicted from routine toxicologic tests”." o + entee_ Species Differences Apart from the effects that cannot be demonstrated in animals, another very fundamental problem exists with testing substances JUNE - JULY 1993 NEXUS¢23