History in the Making

In 2002, our medical Board was engaged as chief scientific witness for an historic UK coalition led by Animal Aid and NAVS, entitled X-CAPE, or ‘The Cambridge Inquiry’, formed to oppose a planning application by Cambridge University to build a new non-human primate lab.

Cambridge University wanted to build their primate lab on Green Belt land and therefore had to prove that its primate experiments were going to be ‘medically and scientifically in the national interest’. Dr Greek’s five hour oral testimony and written Proof of Evidence produced a precedent ruling on ‘medical and scientific, national interest grounds’, defeating Cambridge University’s plans to build the laboratory: its primate experiments falsely claimed able to ‘save patients’ lives’. The government inspector ruled: ‘On the basis of the technical input, therefore, I could not conclude that need in the national interest is demonstrated insofar as this pertains to the scientific/medical research and procedures undertaken by the University’,

This landmark decision concluded what proved to be one of the most high profile planning applications in Britain, and made history.The government inspector’s decision to refuse the primate laboratory supported up-to-date scientific understanding which demonstrates the alarming harm caused by trying to apply results of animal experiments to human patients. Today this evidence is being reported in The British Medical Journal, (The BMJ) who published an Editor’s Choice in June 2014, titled ‘How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research’? [1] This article concluded by quoting from the paper it cited:

“If research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced”. (Emphasis added).

The BMJ’s Editor’s Choice is supported by pharmaceutical companies which openly acknowledge the failure of animal models in their drug development process, and write about this often in the scientific literature, please visit this link for extensive and referenced quotes.

And current understanding of evolutionary biology and complexity science means that a rapidly growing number of internationally respected experts are warning about the dangers of the continued use of animal models as surrogate humans [2-4].  One of the most notable being the award winning oncologist Dr Azra Raza, director of the MDS Centre at Columbia University, who stated this in her TEDx talk:

“One of the reasons is that our system for developing drugs for cancer is essentially broke. We CAN and SHOULD do better. I am here on this stage today really because of the mouse. Earlier this year I pointed out that one of the reasons we are not developing novel therapies for cancer fast enough is that we have been relying too much on animal models. I’ve been getting hate mails since then, but the fact of the matter is that we cured acute myeloid leukemia in mice back in 1977 and in humans to day we are using the same drugs with absolutely dreadful results. We have to stop studying mice because it is essentially pointless and we have to start studying freshly obtained human cells”. (Emphasis added).

Indeed, the National Cancer Institute has said we have lost cures for cancer because studies in rodents have been believed.

But arguably the most famous example of all – penicillin – is cited in  EDM 373. Discovered by Alexander Fleming, penicillin was delayed for human patients by over a decade because it has no effect on rabbits. Here is Alexander Fleming on animal testing:

‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised.’ [5]

The purification of penicillin, by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain, helped it become the miracle cure which has saved millions of human lives. Here is Howard Florey on thetoxicity tests:

‘Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea pig. If we had used guinea pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic and we probably should not have proceeded to try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man.’ (Emphasis added) [6]

Animal models are not capable of predicting human responses and Trans-Species Modeling Theory now explains exactly how and why that is the case. Please read more in the peer reviewed paper ‘The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling’ available here [7]

Please click here, or on the image below, to type in your post code and ask your MP to sign Parliamentary EDM 400, calling for a thorough public medical debate hearing which will be overseen by independent judges from the relevant fields of scientific expertise, to stop all animal models preventing the arrival of effective treatments and cures.

iparl-logo-edm-400

References

1.BMJ 2014;348:g3719
2.  Shanks N, Greek R Animal Models in Light of Evolution Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press; 2009.
3. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J: Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2009, 4:2.
4. Heywood R. In: Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man. Lumley CE, Walker S Lancaster, Quay, editor. 1990. Clinical Toxicity – Could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience; pp. 57–67.
5. Parke DV: Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Drug Safety Evaluation. ATLA 1994, 22:207-209.

6. Florey H: The advance of chemotherapy by animal experiment. Conquest 1953, 41:12.
7. Greek et al. BMC Medical Ethics 2012, 13:16.