Nexus - 0214 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

headline in The New York Times revealed: “Physical and Mental Disabilities in Newborns Doubled in 25 Years". Furthermore, it has recently been uncovered that every year more than a quarter of a pad babies (1 in 12) are born with birth defects in the United lates.’ standard LDSO tests consist of forcing massive amounts of the test substance down the throats of a large number of animals to discover at what dosage-level about 50 per cent of them will die, Even if the substance is not poisonous to the animal, it will cause damaging effects by overpowering the animal's ability to cope with the sheer quantities.” Most toxicologists and clinicians agree that these tests are scien- tifically indefensible. Professor Zbinden writes: "For the recogni- tion of the symptomatology of acute poisoning in man, and for the determination of the human lethal dose, the LDSO in animals is of very little value."” D. Lorke, from the Institute of Toxicology, Bayer AG, Germany, states that "even if the LDS0 could be mea- sured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numer- ical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is hardly possi- ble."® Despite the fact that the these tests have no scientific validity, they are used as a crude index of acute toxicity, demanded by gov- emment regulations. According to one of Britain's largest contract laboratories, Huntingdon Research Centre, "Approximately 90 per cent of LDS0 tests which are performed by this Contract Research Centre, and probably by others also, are purely to obtain a value for various legislative needs." Criticisms From Within Because animal testing gives false and misleading data on the ‘safety’ and ‘efficacy’ of dangerous drug substances, many toxicolo- gists and clinicians have expressed much criticism. To quote some of them: Even when a drug has been subjected to a complete and ade- quate pharmacologic investigation on several species of animals and found to be relatively non-toxic, it is frequently found that such a drug may show unexpected toxic reactions in diseased human beings. This has been known almost since the birth of scientific pharmacology.” (Mr F Marchall 1029 Raltimare \ or (Dr E. Marshall, 1932, Baltimore.) ..most experts considered the modern toxicological routine procedure a wasteful. endeavour in which scientific inventive- ness and common sense have been replaced by a thoughtless completion of standard protocols.” (Professor G. Zbinden, World Health Organisation toxicologist.) Fraudulent Teratogenic Tests ~ (Professor G. Zbinden, World Health Organisation toxicologist.) Supposedly to safeguard pregnant women from the exposure of potentially teratogenic drugs, these substances are tested on various species of pregnant animals before being marketed. However, these ‘ tests are also worthless, because as Dr (Professor Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the (ag Pharmacological Institute of the University of Robert Sharpe explains in his book, The Cruel Deception (1988): Bonn, Germany.) Normally, animal mpelnete not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect.” fo come mate ies aria ee h Animal Testing Gives Hints, Indications? F 2 so Every year more thana In upon of animal testing, vivisectionists "We hysiological structure, function and 3 y ‘3 don't expect final answers from biochemistry of the placenta aggravate quarter of a million babies *°4Y: the usual differences in metabolism, : animal experiments, but just hints, indica- excretion, distribution and absorption a in 12) are born with ons, which encourage us to continue in a that exists between species and make A i . particular direction.” This is, of course, sheer reliable predictions impossible.” birth defects in the United nonsense. Professor Pietro Croce explains: But what's an indication? An approxi- The ineffectiveness of the teratogenic States. mate information, merely orientative. tests is demonstrated by the fact that the And as the compass card shows, an ori- malformations caused by thalidomide (a entation can point in the right direction, of which there is only one, or to one of the many wrong directions. And an ani- mal experiment only very rarely points to the right direction, and when it does, it is due to coincidence, and at any rate verifiable only after the fact. Experimenting on animals to do medical research is like playing roulette.” drug prescribed to pregnant women for morning sickness that caused over 10,000 grotesque birth deformities) proved very difficult to duplicate on animals, despite being tested on a large range of species. Writing in his book, Drugs as Teratogens, J. L. Schardein comments: In pregnant animals, differences in the eta ogical structure, function and iochemistry of the placenta aggravate the usual differences in metabolism, excretion, distribution and absorption that exists between species and make reliable predictions impossible.” In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbit, two breeds of dogs, three strains of hamsters, eight species of primates and in other such varied <— as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalido- mide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally. How Should Drugs Be Tested? Vivisectionists would have the public believe that animal testing is an essential part of drug testing and evaluation, and that these tests cannot be dispensed with. This is also nonsense, as true scien- tific methods that are accurate and reliable are available and in cur- rent use. Drug testing and evaluation should include: the use of human tis- sues, cells and organs (in vitro cultures); chromatography and mass spectrometry (which separate drug substances at their molecular level to identify their properties);* quantum ee (using quantum mechanics to understand the molecular structure of chemi- cals);* properly carried-out human clinical trials;“ and thorou; reporting of drug side-effects by post-market surveillance.” The Ames test used in conjunction with in vitro tests is very effective in determining teratogenic and carcinogenic (cancer-causing) proper- ties of substances. Further, medical historian, Hans Ruesch points out in his book, Slaughter of the Innocent (1991): Only when the white New Zealand rabbit was tested, a few malformed rabbit babies were obtained, and subsequently also some malformed monkeys—after years of tests [where researchers were constantly increasing the doses that were force-fed], hundreds of different strains and millions of animals used. But researchers immediately pointed out that malforma- tions, like cancer, could be obtained by administration of practi- cally any substance in high concentration, including sugar and salt, which will eventually upset the organism, causing trouble.°* Why Do Drug Companies Use Animal Tests? Although the previously methods have a demonstrated proven worth, drug companies still insist on using misleading animal tests, because they i that government regulations demand them. But why would they’ Bearing in mind the drug companies’ criminal reputation in fraud- ulent drug testing and other illegal activities, with the collaboration of corrupt government and medical officials (as demonstrated by Birth Deformities on the Increase As a result of the thalidomide tragedy, there has been a massive increase in the use of test animals but this has failed to prevent fur- ther deformities. On the contrary, the malformations have increased, and more than twenty years later, on 19 July 1983, a JUNE - JULY 1993 NEXUSe25