Animal Experimentation Is Not Just Bad Science It Is Not Science At All

What is also notable, and I apologise if this has already been stated, but it is often not, is that human medicine cannot be reliably based on even primates, let alone any other species. It is true that over 99% of our DNA are held in common with chimpanzees but, to put this in [perspective, 60% of our DNA is common to bananas and 50% with cabbages. Needless to say 60% of human diseases will not be cured by banana experiments. As far as chimpanzees go they do nto get HIV AIDS, malaria, hepatitis to name afew disease which kill millions of humans each year, they can be given polio only via the respiratory system whereas humans get it via the digestive system, this delayed polio research by 29 years, can consume strychnine without ill effect and do not get lung cancer from smoking. This is the BEST animal for human research, the rest are even poorer models.

Humans now have 30,000 (thirty thousand) diseases. One would think that with 60 million animals a year being killed in medical 'research' (and billions of dollars spent) they could cure just one of them.

How did we end up with so many diseases? Well exposure to adn consumption of hundreds of thousands of artificial substances amy be a contributing factor. Yet, theses substances, along with strychnine, cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, botulin, asbestos, DDT, benzene, HIV infected blood and cigarettes to name a few, all pass animal 'tests'. In reality the only health being protected here is the financial health of soem very powerful industries, particularly the pharmaceutical (side effects from which are the fourth largest killer in teh USA) and petro chemical industries. The fact that their products pass animal 'tests' has traditionally been an effective legal defence.

Real scientific methods do exist and they are faster and cheaper. The problem is that they would show these products to be harmful rather than 'safe'. See or

"The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons", Dr Ralph Haywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Science

noratmedicineforme noratmedicineforme
36-40, M
2 Responses Mar 8, 2010

i just wanted to say how much i agree with all the above comments, very well written and everyone has done their homework on the subject, unlike the cruel "humans" who do these pointless experiments. personaly it is my animals that give me a reason to get up in the morning and enrich my life so much that to think of ant animal suffering at the hands of another makes me sick, i also agree that to test human drugs on humans is much more suitable all round, i wonder are animal drugs tested on people first???

this is a common suggestion generated by supporters of vivisection veiled as opponents of it to give the impression that opponents of animal experiments are anti human and that humans must be harmed instead of animals. as animal exp. do not work the suggestion that it should be replaced with anything which would have the same effect is logically flawed.<br />
<br />
85% of drugs which pass the animal test phase fail the human trial phase.<br />
<br />
microdosing is the solution to making drugs safe for humans. this involves firstly testing on human cell cultures then giving tiny amounts of the drug to preferebly people who would be the market for the drug but at least a greater variety of humans than are presently used and for a longer duration. the dose is increased and the patient/subject monitored until the dose is above the therapeutic amount. this allows toxicity and efficacy to be tested .<br />
<br />
greater post marketing drug surveillance should also occur.<br />
<br />
better again is gene technology which allows drugs to be tailor made to ones dna.<br />
<br />
as this works it would expose many drugs as being potentially harmful and not provide legal protection to the drug/chem industry, that is the problem.<br />