Monkey tests at heart of Merck case (Vioxx)

[JackieO]

Monkey tests at heart of Merck case
Lawsuit says the study was key to rebuttal of Vioxx questions

Thursday, July 14, 2005
BY ED SILVERMAN
Star-Ledger Staff

A nonprofit group charges Merck improperly relied on animal tests to show Vioxx is safe, while dismissing other evidence the painkiller increased the risk of heart attacks in humans. The allegations were made in a lawsuit filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group that pointed to previously undisclosed tests conducted by Merck in approximately 50 African green monkeys.

...The nonprofit group charged Merck should not have relied on animal data to promote Vioxx as safe for two reasons: Animal tests can be unreliable and Merck already had evidence that Vioxx harmed humans.

"They knew there was no way to know that clotting data from monkeys would be duplicated in humans," said Dan Kinburn, associate general counsel for the group, which opposes animal testing for medical research. "But it appears that this single animal study was the basis for rejecting the Vigor study findings. And they admitted that after withdrawing Vioxx last fall that the basis for saying naproxen protected the heart was based on animal studies."

http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1121316953302120.xml&coll=1

[livinginphotographs]

1. But...but...but...but.....

Animal testing is necessary!!!! :sarcasm:

[LisaL]

2. Of course it is necessary. Do you seriously think they test it on humans

first? They always test it on animals, and if animals start dying off... Then well, it doesn't even get to human trials.

[Catchawave]

3. Glad they didn't test chocolate on dogs then :) n/t

[shockra]

4. Or aspirin on cats.

"It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals. Aspirin kills cats yet is relatively safe in humans. Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives. Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep. Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses. Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate."

http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/against.htm

[LisaL]

7. Last I checked, chocolate wasn't a drug.

:think:

[livinginphotographs]

8. Wow, talk about obtuse.

He's (or she's) referring to the fact that you can't see how something affects an animal and assume that it is going to affect a human the same way.

[LisaL]

9. No? Really?

Are you pulling my leg?
:sarcasm:

[livinginphotographs]

10. I just figured that since you flock to these threads

To advertise how obtuse you can be, you'd not let us down in this one.

Wait, I can end with a smiley too (your favorite). :eyes:

[LisaL]

14. My opinion-people who oppose to animal testing are

freaking hypocrites unless they also stop eating meat and wearing leather. And when you go to your Dr., make sure none of the drugs or therapies used on you were tested on animals. I wish you good luck with all that.

[livinginphotographs]

22. Uh, most people who oppose animal testing

Also don't eat meat and don't wear leather.

So no, I don't eat meat or wear leather. And I don't particularly trust doctors, so I haven't been to one in years. And truly, it was your well-wishing that made all that possible. Thank you.

[LisaL]

31. I eat meat, wear leather, and support animal research.

So, there.

[livinginphotographs]

36. But you have a problem with PETA euthanizing animals.

So I guess that makes you a freaking hypocrite. So there.

[LisaL]

59. And I guess you don't have a problem with Peta

euthanizing animals?
What does that make you?
:shrug:

[HuckleB]

33. That's not my experience.

Not by a longshot.

Though I don't think that matters very much either.

[Kraklen]

40. That's great.

Please don't take any pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, etc. since they've all been tested on animals.

Oh, and make sure you volunteer for clinical trials.

[cheeseit]

70. Nice- insist all drugs be tested on animals, then call...

...anti-vivisectionists hypocrites for using these drugs despite the fact that their suggested alternatives--many of which are described in this thread--have been ignored. What a charming way of trying to kill off those that disagree with you.

[RebelOne]

32. I am opposed to animal testing and I am a vegetarian,

so I don't eat meat nor wear leather. So you cannot classify me as a "freaking hypocrite."

[Kraklen]

49. Do you use pharmaceutical drugs?

If so, how often do you volunteer for clinical trials?

[HuckleB]

12. Actually...

there are plenty of dogs in this world who've binged on chocolate without being the worse for wair. The chocolate issue doesn't affect 'em all. While dogs generally metabolize the dangerous ingredients in chocolate slower than humans, dogs and humans both metabolize different substances at different rates.

[bitchkitty]

17. Depends on the type of chocolate -

milk chocolate is pretty harmless unless they eat a LOT of it. Baker's chocolate is dangerous.

[HuckleB]

18. Yes.

Even then, I've come across many cases where dogs got into dark chocolate, families called their vets who just shook their heads in puzzlement at the lack of symptoms.

[WhiteTara]

15. me too!

[XemaSab]

19. Or amanita mushrooms on squirrels

n/t

[livinginphotographs]

6. Yeah, and penicillin worked so well on animals.

Good thing they didn't rely on those animal tests.

[HuckleB]

11. With what would you replace animal testing?

:shrug:

[LisaL]

13. I assume he/she wants to replace animal testing with human

testing. And if subjects start dying off during the testing-oh well...

[livinginphotographs]

23. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

27. Uh, my question still stands.

[livinginphotographs]

29. Answered below.

[RebelOne]

34. I propose that we do testing on death row prisoners.

That way, if they die off, oh, well.

[Catchawave]

51. The prison reform people won't let you test

on prisoners, unless they sign up for clinical studies, I suppose.

[Dave Reynolds]

62. No shit?

Did you forget the little "sarcasm" thingy?

I thought I wandered into FR for a second.

[HuckleB]

69. OK.

Pretend that's approved. It fills an extremely small portion of the need. What do you do to fill the rest?

[jmowreader]

57. I would support human testing

I mean, we've got to do SOMETHING with the Bush Administration.

Testing on anyone else? I think not.

[shockra]

20. There's a list of alternatives...

On the Americans For Medical Advancement site:

http://www.curedisease.com/techno.html

In Vitro Research
Epidemiology
Computer and Mathematical Modeling
Genetics
Clinical Research
Autopsies
Post-Marketing Surveillance
Technology

The AFMA was founded by Ray C. Greek MD and Jean Swingle Greek DVM who have written several books on the way animal testing has delayed advances in human medicine. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals, What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals: Medical Research for the Twenty-First Century, and Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans.

http://www.curedisease.com/book.html

Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals was, in essence, sparked by a family squabble. Jean Swingle Greek, just beginning her clinical rotations at the University of Wisconsin at Madison veterinary school, would often come home with questions about how to treat certain cases. Her husband, Ray Greek, who was at the time teaching medicine at the university, would reply with the correct answer as it applied to humans. But, in almost all cases, what cured a human didn't work in the animals, and vice-versa.

This led the Drs. Greek to spend a decade studying comparative anatomy and physiology, reviewing treatment notes, and perusing scientific literature as well as medical history books. Jean's expertise in animal anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, combined with Ray's expertise in the same for humans, allowed this husband/wife team to examine the similarities and differences between the species with greater depth. Their work resulted in Sacred Cows and Golden Geese, a book that focuses on the science of this hotly debated topic.

[livinginphotographs]

24. Thanks Shockra.

I went to bed and missed the fireworks.

[HuckleB]

25. Those aren't alternatives.

They are other steps in the process already being used.

So what actually replaces animal testing?

I know all about the Greeks, and all about the selective spin being used regarding the development history of one, very old medicine: penicillin. So, I really am asking a very specific question that needs a specific answer. Pretend you are on a research team, and all the steps have been taken and proven successful up to now, and it's time to go to animal research. How are you going to replace this step with something else?

[livinginphotographs]

28. My answer:

I'm not a scientist, so I don't claim to know the exact method that can replace animal testing.

That said, a pig has the intelligence of a 3-year-old child. So do you think it would be acceptable to test something on a 3-year-old child if it would benefit millions of sick people?

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
--Professor Charles R.Magel (1920- )

My main point in this thread is kicking a story saying that Merck pulled a Bush administration when it came to whether or not Vioxx is safe or not (someone close to me died because of this drug), but I think it does pose some questions about the reliability of animal testing as well.

[HuckleB]

30. So, you don't actually understand the research process?

Then how do you know that pigs have the intelligence of 3-year-olds? Is that in every area of development? What type of research was used to show this?

Umm. And, again, what should replace animal testing? Oh, and why not talk about Vioxx, if that's your aim in regard to this thread? Further, there is more to this than Merck, if a small sample size animal study was used for approval of Vioxx, without large sample size human studies following it. Something about this lawsuit's basis makes me wonder what the bigger story really is.

[livinginphotographs]

35. The question of a pig's intelligence and the research process

for testing pharmaceuticals on animals are two totally different issues.

I admit that I am not qualified to sit down and design a process for researching pharmaceuticals. (I'm an insurance salesman and a rock star, not a scientist, just check my profile if you dont' believe me).

But for starters, take it for what it is worth: http://www.goveg.com/feat/Pigslife/

I still stand by the quote I listed above, and ask you again: would you approve of testing drugs on 3-year-old children, or death row inmates, or the mentally retarded? After all, intelligence seems to be the force behind your justification of it. I tend to focus more on the question of whether a creature can suffer than how intelligent it is.

[HuckleB]

37. No, they aren't different issues.

And if they are, then why did you bring both up?

It's you who is choosing to bring up the intelligence argument. By that token, all forms of life have some form of intelligence. Are you saying we shouldn't even study bacteria and virus life? Plant life? No more petri dishes? No more herbal remedies? Nothing? I mean, if you are going to go down this road, you have to go all the way down the road. Or are you saying it would be ok to study a newborn pig, but not an adult pig? Or a snail, but not a marmot? Where's your line, and why is it where it is instead of somewhere else?

Again, what replaces animal studies? And what do you do with treatments and products already developed using animal studies?

[livinginphotographs]

38. I'm saying intelligence is not a factor

in my decision to oppose animal testing. The animal's ability to suffer is. I use the intelligence argument because that's how people have always argued with me supporting animal testing, that because humans are more intelligent than animals, we should be able to test on them.

I can't tell you where the line is - but that doesn't mean I throw up my hands and accept animal testing.

If I'm not answering your question, let me know. I'd be more than happy to try again.

But let me ask you: why do you support animal testing?

[HuckleB]

39. I accept it because...

when I look at the whole of the ethical equation, at the amount of suffering averted by animal testing (for all species), I note that there would be far more suffering for all species on this planet if we chose to shut animal testing down altogether. It's not a black and white world -- especially when one deals with ethical issues. And I don't think one can simply conclude something is wrong without continually questioning why one thinks that, and without taking the logic used to justify it to other places to see if it still fits. No one is asking you to throw up your hands. I'm just pointing out that the answers aren't actually so easy to come by without stopping on answers that can be very easily challenged as one searches other roads.

On edit: Thanks for the conversation. I may not be able to check in again until next week, so don't think I'm ignoring you, if you choose to respond to this post.

Salud.

[livinginphotographs]

42. And there's the fundamental difference between us.

I think that's why this argument will go nowhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you see humans are more worthy of living than animals. (I'm not trying to be nasty, that's the best way I can think of right now to describe it). Understandable, because you are one.

I, on the other hand, feel that equal consideration should be given to humans AND animals, and therefore feel that subjecting animals to cruel experiments to maybe save people in the future is unethical.

You're right, it's not black and white. I acknowledge that many people have been saved and much human suffering has been alleviated due to animal testing, but when I ask myself, "Would you accept these same experiments tested on small children, or mental patients, or another human who does not have the same mental capacity that the rest of the population does?" the answer is a resounding no. Therefore, I can't excuse doing the same thing to monkeys, pigs, dogs, or cats.

So yes, I do continually question my beliefs. Until I can become comfortable with the idea of cruelly experimenting on humans as well as animals (and I doubt that will happen), I will still oppose animal testing.

[HuckleB]

45. Except...

you ignored one (very big) thing from my statement. Animal testing has also led to treatments that alleviate animal suffering, in addition to assisting in efforts to bring a number of species from the brink of extinction.

And again, I don't know how to square your position unless you are arguing against the use of all life forms to sustain life, or, at the very least, arguing against the use of bacteria studies and the like, as well as animal studies.

[Kraklen]

41. I am a scientist.

I'm a pharmacologist, to be precise. And while I don't test on animals myself, my lab partner, a vet med, takes my work and does.

There is no replacement for animal testing. None. It doesn't exist. I wish it existed. I love animals as much as you.

So why do it? Because I'd rather see animals get tested than human beings suffer and die needlessly.

[flvegan]

44. Dr. Pippen disagrees with you

"In-vitro testing using human cells and tissues, computer-based modeling, microdosing studies in humans, stem cell technology to allow testing of human cells and tissues, and the burgeoning field of pharmacogenomics, which allows us to compare DNA and predict toxicity and efficacy of the drugs. They are all superior to animal testing. We should be promoting these methods. As a group, these methods are light years ahead of our crude animal tests, they are safe, accurate, and cost effective, and we must move toward these methods if we are to have safe and effective medicines in America."

You said, "There is no replacement for animal testing. None. It doesn't exist." Looks like there might be, though.

[HuckleB]

46. In fact...

whenever animal testing can be replaced by quicker, more accurate means, such stem cell use, it has been. However, that does not mean that we are at a point in time, where all animal testing can be replaced by other means.

[Kraklen]

48. I've never heard of a Dr. Pippen.

If he wants to invent a method that can become a suitable replacement for animal testing, I certainly wish him the best of luck. He's certainly correct that in-vitro testing, modeling, genomics, and proteomics have improved our research capabilities. But none of them have or likely will be a suitable replacement in the foreseeable future.

[shockra]

63. About Dr. Pippin

(Radio show)

Bad Medicine: Relying on Animal Experimentation with Dr. John J. Pippin

We hear from Dr. John J. Pippin, a cardiovascular medicine specialist who testified against animal research at the FDA committee hearings on Vioxx and other COX-2 drugs Feb 17. He will also discuss other dangerous medications released on the market because of positive animal studies, the human tragedy of animal experimentation and what the viable alternatives are.

<snip>

Dr. Pippin is currently focusing his efforts toward the replacement of animal research and testing in medicine. He is a graduate of Harvard College, and received his medical training in Boston, Dallas and Richmond, VA. He has been on the medical faculties at Harvard Medical School, Medical College of Virginia, University of Oklahoma, and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. He was most recently director of cardiovascular medicine and medical imaging at the world renowned Cooper Clinic in Dallas, leaving that position in October 2004.

http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows.htm

After receiving a five-year American Heart Association Clinician Scientist Award, Dr. Pippin carried out studies in nuclear cardiology at the Medical College of Virginia (MCV), making important breakthroughs in cardiac imaging that would not have been possible using animals. There he was named director of the cardiovascular medicine fellowship program, and he was chosen as MCV’s Cardiovascular Medicine Professor of the Year three times.

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM02Autumn/GM02Autumn12.html

[LisaL]

64. Dr. Pippin's views are clearly an exception, not a rule.

[shockra]

71. Putting ethics before profit is the exception, yes.

And we would all be better off if it weren't.

I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.
-Charles Mayo (founder of the Mayo Clinic)

[livinginphotographs]

72. Oh, we wouldn't want to be sentimental.

No biggie, those plugs in that monkeys head should probably serve some purpose. And I'm thoroughly offended by the holocaust comparison!!!!



Still wouldn't want to be sentimental. But I'm still appalled at the holocaust comparison!!!!



Hmmm, tattoo, cruel experiments. Still, I'm appalled at the holocaust comparison!!!

Remember, we mustn't be sentimental. :eyes:

[livinginphotographs]

73. One thing to say....

I don't know how you motherfuckers sleep at night.

[LisaL]

60. I also work in the field. And while I personally

don't work with animals, a lot of scientists do. And I don't care what Dr. Pippen, whoever he is, says. There is nothing that can satisfactory replace animal testing in this time.

[HuckleB]

16. Mouse study suggests Alzheimer's damage reversible

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-07-14T180349Z_01_N14707626_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-HEALTH-ALZHEIMERS-DC.XML

Should this be stopped?

[shockra]

21. I'm suspicious that this isn't more drug hype.

"Ashe's team worked with mice genetically engineered to develop the mutant tau, but this mutation could be stopped -- or de-activated -- with use of a drug called doxycycline."

That animal tests suggest hope for this that and the other are claims that are made all of the time. But, it's rarely all its cracked up to be.

http://www.navs.org/news/comm_full_article.cfm?SectionID=News&CommID=55

12/04/2003

When a cure isn't necessarily a cure...

One of the pioneers of human islet cell transplants, Dr. James Shapiro, of the Canadian Institutes of Health in Edmonton, this week commented on a report that a Massachusetts team have cured mice of diabetes using spleen cells,

"A diabetes cure is annouced every week in mice, but very few of these strategies ultimately translate to a meaningful cure in the clinic."

(New Scientist magazine, Issue 2422, November 22, 2003, "Can Spleen Cells Treat Diabetes", Page 20)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3508

If you look around, you can quickly find the claims. Like this article:

Bone marrow experiments suggest diabetes cure

14:14 17 March 2003

<snip>

The experiments of Hussain and his colleagues set out to show that bone marrow cells could become beta cells. To do this, they extracted bone marrow cells from male mice and injected them into the tail veins of female mice, in which the male cell would be easy to detect.

The females had been exposed to radiation to destroy their bone marrow and beta cell function.In addition, the team engineered the genes of the male cells to signal that insulin was being produced by making a green fluorescent protein. After four to six weeks, the team found glowing green cells in the females' pancreases.

[HuckleB]

26. You're suspcious? Drug "hype"?

Oh brother. Yeah, let's just stop all research, because it's all just hype. Look, not every promising road leads to success. That's why the research process is so long. But if you don't go down the roads that lead to dead ends, you're are not going to know which ones lead to success. It isn't about hype. It's about reporting where the research is in the process and what's been found thus far. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So again. Should this be stopped?

[Catchawave]

52. I guess this is good news for mice....

...the article does mention trying this with humans is a long way ....and a gazillion dollars in grant money....off.

It's how researcher's make a living :)

"genetically altered mice" ???????

[JackieO]

56. If you want to read something weird

check this out:

Moral Debate: Procedure Risks Making Monkeys More Humanlike
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050714/sc_space/moraldebateprocedurerisksmakingmonkeysmorehumanlike;_ylt=AuoekgO7Dh6lV1pG5qjy05ys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

[Catchawave]

58. Wasn't weird at all :)

I especially liked this:

"Our group struggled with many fundamental questions," said Ruth Faden, director of the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute at Johns Hopkins University. "Are there cognitive or emotional capacities that are unique to humans in ways that make us worthy of higher moral status? What sets one primate, including us, apart from another primate, cognitively speaking?"

[JackieO]

66. the weird part

is this whole business with "chimeras", mixing animals together, mice with human brains, etc.

Animals have been getting a real work-out in science lately. Methuselah mice are helping humanity with aging, pigs are trying artificial corneas and monkeys get gene manipulations that force them to work hard with no thought of reward.

Now, Stanford University has given famed researcher Irving Weissman permission to create a mouse-human hybrid. The intent is to inject human brain cells into the brains of developing mice to see what happens. The National Academy of Sciences will unveil guidelines on chimera and stem cell research this spring.

Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee that considered the proposal, told the San Jose Mercury News, "We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures... or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop."

http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/technovel_mouse_050217.html

[shockra]

67. Then there's the whole thing about farm animals.

Trying to create animals that are less trouble to take care of. Like chickens without feathers. They've been working on that one since the seventies. Who wants to go to all the work of plucking chickens? Just make them featherless.

Chickens with feathers: public enemy No. 1
By John Weldon
June 3 2002

`Feathers are a waste." So says Israeli scientist Avigdor Cahaner (The Age, May 22). "Chickens are using feed to produce something that has to be dumped and the farmers have to waste electricity to overcome the fact."

Oh really? Has anybody asked the chickens whether they think growing feathers is a boo-boo?

Not satisfied with accusing chickens of gratuitous feather production, Cahaner goes on to insist that this onanistic pastime is by no means the limit of chickenish selfishness, but rather that it is serves only to lead chickens even further down the road of economic profligation by causing them to then waste energy keeping cool, (presumably because their feathers make them too hot), energy they might better expend on growing plump and juicy.

How evil of the chickens! Perhaps Cahaner would like George Bush to include them in his axis of evil.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/02/1022982648405.html?oneclick=true

Featherless chicken photos.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Science/Chicken.html

At the Animal Research Institute (Canada) we are trying to breed animals without legs and chickens without feathers.

— R.S. Gowe, ARI Director

Yes. Animals are being bred to grow so large and so fast that their legs can't hold them up, hence a bunch of crippled animals who often break their legs. It's only humane to get rid of the poor things's legs altogether. :sarcasm:

[HuckleB]

68. Yeah, those horrific researchers.

Just doing busy work to make a living.

:eyes:


Why is it that the folks who are opposed to animal testing seem to have such a hard time getting into the actual muck of the ethical questions at hand?

And if you don't know and understand the basis for genetically altered mice, it would seem to me that you are missing a great deal of information regarding the issues and reasons and actual accuracy of animal research. Thus, it's a bit difficult to digest why you would post the rather inaccurate articles below, with their selective spin on a tale that's much larger and much more complex than they care to admit, or perhaps actually understand.

[Dave Reynolds]

61. Required by law.

Necessary? Up for debate. Required by the FDA? Yes.

[mom cat]

5. Let's experiment on chimps...starting with George....

[Catchawave]

54. Nah....I wouldn't even put him through what those poor

animals suffer. Like I tell people, I may be a bleeding heart liberal, but at least I have a heart !

[mom cat]

65. You're probably right , damn it. I'm probably also too much of a

Bleeding heart liberal to do any experimentation on him, but after all of the suffering that he has caused in the world, if anyone deserves to feel caged, brutalized, victimized, sickened and tortured, I'm sure that George Bush would rank right up there.

[flvegan]

43. Animal experimentation is a logical contradiction

So sayeth Prof. Charles Magel:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us."

[HuckleB]

47. Either/or statements that simplify ethical questions...

do not make for understanding. They make for great hyperbole, and they help get people up in arms, but that's the extent of it.

[daleo]

50. Bush based science is bound to focus on monkey health

With a chimp running the country, monkey based evidence is bound to trump human clinical trials. It is a bit surprising that Bush allows testing on monkeys, but nobody ever said he was a nice chimp.

[Catchawave]

53. The Human Cost of Animal Experiments

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/animaltesting.html


There is strong scientific evidence that animal-based testing is grossly inaccurate in evaluating how a drug or product will affect humans, and is a grave risk to the health and safety of people and animals alike.


THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST VIVISECTION
Graphic pictures of cats with electrodes clamped to their heads, or monkeys strapped to chairs with their brains cut open, their eyes filled with pain and terror, are enough to upset momentarily even the most hardened person. But most of us put these images out of our mind and accept the situation, because we're told by the government and medical establishment that such experiments are for our own good. They insist that without these procedures there will never be cures for the world's diseases, and that those who oppose animal experiments are extremists holding back "progress".

Yet, despite the supposed stringency of animal tests on drugs deemed safe for human consumption and released onto the market, two million Americans become seriously ill and approximately 100,000 people die every year because of reactions to medicines they were prescribed.1 This figure exceeds the number of deaths from all illegal drugs combined, at an annual cost to the public of more than US$136 billion in health care expenses.2 In England, an estimated 70,000 deaths and cases of severe disability occur each year because of adverse reactions to prescription drugs, making this the third most common cause of death (after heart attack and stroke).3

The drug company Ciba-Geigy has estimated that only five per cent of chemicals found safe and effective in animal tests actually reach the market as prescription drugs.4 Even so, during 1976 to 1985 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 209 new compounds-102 of which were either withdrawn or relabelled because of severe unpredicted side-effects including heart attacks, kidney failure, liver failure and stroke.5

more....

[Catchawave]

55. *Warning* This link will give you a headache.....

*grapic photos warning*

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/monkey.html