Nexus - 0214 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Ruesch and Braithwaite, among others), the following analysis by Hans Ruesch comes as no surprise: to fulfil political and legal obligations. As if to confirm our sus- picions, some drugs are marketed and clinical procedures undertaken despite ‘failing’ animal tests! But if animal tests are sometimes ignored, they can also be used to imply certain advantages of a company's new product over existing drugs... On the other hand, the fact that animal tests are misleading can form the basis of a company's defence against claims about one of its products... So, if animal experiments are misleading, they are at least flexible: they can be deemed inapplicable when necessary, ignored when convenient and used to imply important advan- tages over competing products. [Emphasis added.]* (Dr Robert Sharpe, in The Cruel Deception, 1988.) It is not only scandalous but also tragic that the Drug Trust is — to flood the market with its products on the grounds hat they have been al tested for effectiveness and safety on animals, and that the Health Authorities, meaning the Government, abet this deception, which is nothing but con- firmed fraud. For both sides are well aware that animal tests are fallacious and merely serve as an alibi—an insurance against the day when it is no longer possible to conceal the dis- astrous side effects of a drug. Then ug can say that ‘all the required tests have been made"—that they have obeyed the Law. But they don't say that they themselves have imposed those laws, because the Lawmaker has no choice in all medical ques- tions but to submit to the dictates of the 'medical experts'. And who are they? — of the Chemo-Medical Syndicate, whose links to the Health Authorities are so close that they usually overlap. So they, and no one else, impart binding orders to that mysterious and omnipotent individual, identified anonymously as 'The Lawmaker'. [Emphasis added.]* Another basic poles which we share as a result of the regu- lations and the things that prompted them is an unscientific pre- occupation 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 Gallagher, 1964, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, US.) To back his conclusions, Hans Ruesch has assembled massive damning evidence against the perpetrators of the phoney drug-test- There are many ways ing fraud. This has been well-documented in his book Slaughter of of any argument, usin, the Innocent, and its sequel, Naked Empress or The Great Medical to choose the right one Fraud (1992). The documentary film, Hidden Crimes “ (1986), Do we want to shov which is based on Hans Ruesch's books and is produced by Javier Burgos, gives a visual account of the vivisection fraud. R h cited iminal trial involvi Chemie Grunenthal, the German manufac ‘if drugs were tested f thalidomide. The incriminat- ° ed for having marketed s harmful drug, properly using true i : * . ae scientific methods, the In December 1970, the | imi- Perr wd triaf in Germany's judicia i vast majority of them two and a half years, 283 days in would not be allowed ranean os _ so 4 emie Grunenthal, after a long line of medical authorities had testified that onto the market eee the generally accepted animal tests could never be conclusive for human beings. This was unprecedented, for the testimonies came from an impressive array of individuals whose useless, we withhold i careers and reputations were practically built on animal experi- able animal: the dog, mentation...” will continue to thrive of their own accord. | There are many ways of producing ‘irrefutable! facts in support of any argument, using different kinds of animals: one just has to choose the right one. For example: Do we want to show that Amanita phalloides is an excellent edible toadstool? Then we have only to feed it to the rabbit... Do we want to discourage people from eating parsley? Let us give it to the par- sre tested rot, which will probably be found lying \ stone-dead under its perch the next ising true morning. Should we wish to rule out penicillin sthods, the as a therapeutic drug, we have oy to ive it to the guinea-pig which will be ly of them lead in a couple of days... If we wish to convince the consumers ve allowed of tinned food that botulin poison is harmless, let us give it to the cat and it narket... will lick its lips. Let us give it instead to the cat's traditional prey, the mouse, and it will die as if struck by lightning... If we need to show that Vitamin C is useless, we withhold it from the diet of the most readily avail- able animal: the dog, the rat, the mouse, the hamster... the will continue to thrive because their bodies produce Vitamin of their own accord. But let us not eliminate it from the diet of guinea-pigs, primates or humans, or they will die of scurvy... To sum up, one has only to know how to choose the proper animal species to obtain the desired results... This is a bod of science which one can knead like dough. The trouble comes in believing that with dough one can produce health for human beings. [Emphasis added.]* (Professor Pietro Croce in Vivisection or Science—A Choice to Make, 1991. From 1952 to 1982 Croce was head of the laboratory of microbiological, pathological anatomy and chemical analysis at the Research Hospital L. Sacco of Milan, Italy.) Another example to illustrate the above point: Ruesch cites the case of Opren (the arthritis drug responsible for a number of deaths), as reported in the 12 February 1983 issue of Britain's Economist: The Labour member of parliament, Mr Jack Ashley, is cam- paigning against the refusal of Eli Lilly [drug compan to pay compensation to the families of Opren's victims. Eli Lilly says that it eS with all pre-marketing = and cannot therefore be held liable through negligence. [Emphasis added.]* Relying on animal tests means that new products which are thought to be safe are mass-marketed far too quickly and are prescribed by general practitioners and hospital doctors for thousands or even millions of patients without ever being prop- erly assessed. It is hardly surprising that when problems occur—as they do all too frequently these days—they occur on a massive scale. Animal experiments allow drug coma to mass-market new drugs without testing them to see if they are safe and they encourage complacency among prescribing doc- tors who are not as alert for side-effects as they should be because they have been told that the drugs they are prescribing are safe. The consequence of our reliance on animal testing is that new and untried drugs and procedures are being tested on vast num- ntinued on page 63 Doctors Agree: Vivisection is Scientific Fraud The following statements from doctors, not bound to commercial interests, contribute to the real motives behind the vivisectionists' methods of drug testing: 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 are used to protect corporations from legal liability. (Dr Herhert Gundersheimer, 1988, Baltimore, Maryland.) 26¢NEXUS JUNE - JULY 1993 Toxicologists are...pursuing an illusion of safety using animals