We are delighted that Ricky Gervais and Peter Egan have been spotlighted by K9 Magazine this month, in their continued call for a public science hearing to judge claims: that animal experiments can predict the responses of human patients.
Ricky and Peter are photographed with a beautiful ex-laboratory dog called Scarlett, who is joining the science-based campaign FLOE, as Beagle Ambassador.
Thank you K9 Magazine for all your help; thank you Ricky and Peter for this life-saving focus.
Ricky Gervais says:
“Meeting Scarlett and sensing her painful past will stay with me forever. Like all dogs she is incredibly gentle with a heart of gold, but the horrors of two years in a toxicology laboratory are etched in her eyes and body language. This was clear, even in the relatively short time I spent with her. I’m delighted to have signed an Open Letter calling for animal experimenter Prof. Colin Blakemore to face the world’s leading medical opposition to such experiments, in a public science hearing judged by independent experts. I want people to be able to understand how these shocking experiments are now proven to also fail humans.”
Read the Open Letter signed by Ricky and Peter, including signatories Chris Packham and Dr. Jane Goodall. The letter is addressed to leading advocate of animal models for human patients – Prof. Colin Blakemore – and asks him to agree to a rigorous public scientific debate, judged by independent experts from the relevant fields of science: a debate now called for by over 100 MPs.
The National Centre for 3Rs (NC3Rs) promotes an animal testing legislation policy called the 3Rs – ‘reduce, refine and replace’ – established in 1959 for ‘humane experimental technique on animals’.
The 3Rs is now enshrined in the outdated Animals in Scientific Procedures Act , which entirely ignores current scientific knowledge proving that animals have never held predictive value for the responses of humans, in disease research and medical testing. [1-4]
Predictive value in science means getting the answer right around 90 – 95% of the time.
For a test to be accepted as having predictive value by our hospitals and GPs, that test needs to predict the correct outcome for patients around 90-95% of the time. Examples of such tests include those to diagnose if a patient has cancer or HIV AIDS. Animal testing entirely fails to meet this standard. Nine out of ten potential new medicines fail to reach the market shelf because tests on animals are not capable of predicting the responses of humans, in clinical trials. Pharmaceutical companies write about this failure of animal models in their drug development process, openly and often in the scientific literature.
In toxicology testing alone – where rats and Beagles are used to measure the toxicity levels of potential new human medicines – the animal test outcomes correlate with humans around 31% of the time: that’s less than a toss of a coin and worse than guessing. The National Cancer Institute has said we have lost cures for cancer because such studies in rodents have been believed. 
There is no doubt that the wider scientific community – outside the vested interests – agree that animals have never held predictive value for humans. But the 3Rs community continue to ignore this, calling for ‘alternatives’ to a method that has never existed. The correct medical term for human-based research is ‘viable’ – this is not an alternative: animal testing is not an interchangeable alternative with human-based research, which has a track record of success.
The 3Rs also calls for a worthless scientific endeavour to be reduced and refined. For more details on the human medical catastrophe which is the 3Rs, please visit this page.
For an example of how animal modelers use the 3Rs to maintain false science, please visit this tweet, below:
4. Lumley CE, Walker S Lancaster, Quay, editors, 1990, ‘Clinical Toxicity – Could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience’, 57–67; Heywood R. Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man.
5. Gura T: ‘Cancer Models: Systems for identifying new drugs are often faulty’. Science. 1997, 278 (5340): 1041-1042. 10.1126/science.278.5340.1041.
We are delighted that Paul O’Grady has joined Ricky Gervais, Peter Egan, Dr. Jane Goodall and many others in signing the Open Letter to Prof. Colin Blakemore, Britain’s leading advocate for the false scientific concept that animals are able to model human patients, in disease research and medical testing.
The Open Letter, below, calls for Prof. Blakemore to agree to debate his position in the rigorous science hearing called for by EDM 66 now supported by over a hundred cross-party MPs who have signed 5 EDMs to this effect.
Dear Prof. Colin Blakemore,
A freedom of information request provided your letter to the Planning Inspectorate, recommending the extension of a Beagle Breeding Farm at B&K Universal in Grimston Hull. The farm will purpose breed around 2,000 dogs annually, destined for painful and traumatic laboratory experiments – typically involving dogs being force-fed chemicals in experiments lasting ninety days with no pain relief or anaesthetic. According to current medical knowledge the results of such experiments are not capable of predicting the responses of human patients, a position highlighted by The British Medical Journal in its Editor’s Choice, June 2014. Over a hundred MPs, to date, have signed Parliamentary EDMs to hear this evidence in a public scientific debate, overseen by independent judges from the relevant fields of scientific expertise. In your letter, you claim to have ‘always tried to engage with those who oppose animal research and take proper account of their objections’, and that it is ‘unacceptable’ that research ‘is impeded or prevented by extreme action’. We therefore call upon you to agree to participate in the thorough scientific debate, as called for by the Parliamentary EDMs and their growing support.
Ricky Gervais, Chris Packham, Peter Egan, Paul O’Grady, Dr. Jane Goodall DBE, Lesley Nicol, Jill Robinson MBE, Jane Fallon, Rick Wakeman and Rumer
We have launched a new petition asking TV ‘Supervet’ Noel Fitzpatrick to close down his misleading ‘Humanimal Trust’ and agree to participate in the scientific debate called for by Parliamentary EDM 66.
Noel Fitzpatrick has formed the ‘Humanimal Trust’ which promotes the false medical notion that animal experiments can predict the responses of human patients, in disease research and the safety testing of new human medicines. Noel is using naturally occurring illnesses in his veterinary patients and applying that data to humans, to conform to the misleading 3Rs Govt. policy – which ignores current medical knowledge by asking for the numbers of lab animals to be merely reduced. Make no mistake: whether they are veterinary patients or lab animals, the same science applies: animals do not hold predictive value for humans.
Given that there is an ethical issue here too, reducing animal numbers does not address those individual dogs, cats, primates and rodents still left lingering in laboratories after their numbers have been reduced.
In May 2016, the Humanimal Trust submitted incorrect science evidence to Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, in order to secure funding. Our medical Board has written a detailed blog about this, not to be missed, you can read that here.
For examples of the harm and fatalities caused to human patients, by trying to apply data from animals, please visit this link .
For a brochure on why you don’t go to the vet when you are sick, please visit this link.
Rudolph Virchow, advocate for ‘One Medicine’, opponent of Evolution and the Germ Theory of Disease
It’s worth mentioning that the Humanimal Trust cites a 19th century physician, Rudoplh Virchow, as one of the earliest advocates of ‘One Medicine’. Virchow also made the mistake of opposing Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution and never relented in his opposition. In 1877, Virchow said that the idea that man had descended from apes was an attack on society’s moral foundations and he voiced his opinion that teaching Evolution should not be permitted in Germany’s public schools. This was then acted upon by the Prussian education policy in 1882, when it was forbidden to teach natural history lessons. Virchow also opposed the Germ theory of Disease. Virchow’s own belief was that cells became diseased as a result of internal processes resulting from imbalances in the body. Virchow was partly correct: imbalances in the body can lead to cells malfunctioning and becoming diseased. However, cells can also become diseased when they are attacked by microorganisms. Virchow was wrong to oppose the Germ Theory. Virchow also opposed life-saving evidence for cleanliness and hygiene when examining human patients. Ignaz Semmelweis was the doctor in charge of a birthing ward in Vienna, Austria. In 1847 he showed that if medical staff washed their hands before examining patients, death rates dropped dramatically. Many scientists, including Virchow, dismissed Semmelweis’s work as rubbish. Semmelweis died in tragic circumstances in 1865 following the ongoing unreasonable rejection of his work by other scientists. A very large number of unnecessary deaths were caused by the dismissal of Semmelweis’s work.
139 MPs , to date, have now signed four Parliamentary EDMs calling for a rigorous science debate, judged by independent experts from the relevant fields of science – to stop the funding of animal experiments and ‘One Medicine’, now proven to also fail humans. To ask your MP to sign the current EDM simply type in your post code at this link and send your letter today!
Watch the Science Lecture
This insightful and accessible science lecture guides the viewer step by step through how and why using veterinary patients – or lab animals – to try and predict human outcomes has no scientific basis whatsoever: a MUST SEE!
Please sign and share our new petition asking Noel Fitzpatrick to close the Humanimal Trust, or agree to the EDM 66 science debate; sign and share at this link.
The New Statesman publishes our piece today, about the vital need for a rigorous public scientific debate – judged by experts from the relevant fields of science – about claims that results from animal experiments can predict the responses of human patients, in medical research and drug safety testing.
The New Statesman piece closes by printing the Open Letter to kitten experimenter Prof. Colin Blakemore, signed by Ricky Gervais, Chris Packham, Peter Egan, Dr. Jane Goodall DBE, Jane Fallon, Lesley Nicol, Jill Robinson MBE, Rumer and Rick Wakeman. This letter calls upon Prof. Blakemore to agree to participate in the thorough scientific debate, as called for by 138 MPs, to date, who have signed four Parliamentary EDMs calling for this vital science hearing. The hearing will stop the funding of worthless animal models and speed up cures for humans, by re-directing valuable finance to state-of-the-art human based methods, which are viable – not ‘alternatives’.
To read the New Statesman article, please visit this link.
To read why human-based research is viable – not an ‘alternative’ to animal testing – please visit this link.
If you live in the UK you can ask your MP to sign EDM 66, calling for this science hearing. Simply type in your post code at this link and send your letter today.
Ricky Gervais and Chris Packham have joined Peter Egan in leading celebrity signatures on an Open Letter to Britain’s main advocate for animal experiments, Prof. Colin Blakemore – infamous for sewing kittens’ eyes shut, in experiments that he falsely claimed shed light on the human brain.
To read the full statement by science-based campaign FLOE please visit this link.
Press this week include dog magazines ‘Tails’ and K9 Magazine, tweets below:
Patients Campaigning For Cures raise awareness of the vital moral issue of human suffering and death, caused by the now proven failure of animal experiments to help in the search for effective treatments and cures. This human aspect is often overlooked in questioning the morality of animal experiments.
This week, the PR company for animal experimentation, ‘Understanding Animal Research’ (UAR) not only lied about current science, but were additionally exposed by panellist Giles Fraser as failing to uphold a consistent moral position about animals, on the radio programme Moral Maze.
138 MPs, to date, are now calling for UAR to submit the name of their scientist for a rigorous public medical debate – overseen by independent experts from the relevant fields of science – about false claims that laboratory animal models can predict the responses of human patients. Evidence from this medical hearing can then be submitted to decision makers in order to revoke a 70 year old outdated law, which still requires animal testing, despite its now proven failure.
Scientists from the wider community, outside the animal-based research sector, are increasingly reporting on the failure of animal models for human patients, including the Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal and pharmaceutical companies. And today, current understanding of evolutionary biology and complexity science has delivered Trans-Species Modeling Theory, which explains how and why animals fail as predictive models of humans.
To ask your MP to sign the current Parliamentary EDM simply click on the image below, to type in your postcode and send your letter today:
Kelvin Hopkins MP has tabled Parliamentary EDM 66, which highlights our campaign and calls for a rigorous public scientific hearing to judge animal models – now proven to fail the search for effective human treatments and cures.
This called for debate has conditions endorsed as “well set out and fair” by Michael Mansfield QC: independent experts from the relevant fields of science will judge which medical position is correct, based on referenced position papers – as is the normal procedure for peer review.
Please ask your MP to join the cross-party members who are signing Parliamentary EDM66, simply click the image below, or type in your postcode at this link, to write to your MP today.
The highly regarded cancer specialist Dr. Azra Raza gave her TED Talk in 2015, explaining why we MUST STOP funding mice models of cancer, if we are to help find effective treatments and cures for human patients:
An increasing number of expert doctors and scientists, outside the animal-based research sector, agree that animal models hold no predictive value for patients. Experts who have published on this position are far too numerous to name here, but they include pharmaceutical companies which acknowledge the failure of animal models in their drug development process and write about this openly and often in the scientific literature, and the Editor in Chief of the BMJ, Dr Fiona Godlee, who published her Editor’s Choice in June 2104: How predictive and productive is animal research? This piece 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).
We have collected together 50 referenced examples of animal testing which have led to human deaths; please share this important document via our twitter account. These 50 examples alone should be enough to halt the continued funding of such veterinary principles for human patients!!
But above all, our medical Board has recently delivered Trans-Species Modelling Theory (TSMT) which explains exactly how and why animals are shown, time and time again, to fail the search for effective human treatments and cures. TSMT is founded upon current understanding of evolutionary biology and complex systems. How many people today would risk their lives going to the veterinary clinic, instead of attending a specially trained human medical specialist?
Progress is building in Parliament!
136 MPs have now signed four Parliamentary Early Day Motions, calling for a rigorous scientific debate to stop the continued waste of funding for clearly failing animal models. Please note that this EDM is now closed for the UK election, on June 8th.
The so-called ‘Big Animal Research Debate’ is false and no more than a big con!
We have published tweets making sure people are aware that there is a false project called the ‘Big Animal Research Debate’, organised by the UK’s PR for animal experiments ‘Understanding Animal Research’ (UAR). This so-called ‘debate’ is aimed at influencing young people at universities, to try and mislead them that animal-based research helps human patients. We are grateful to Dr. Dan Lyons for his tweets exposing UAR’s agenda:
The so-called ‘Big Animal Research Debate’, aka UAR, have refused to submit the name of their expert for the genuine medical debate being called for by 134 MPs and Dr. Jane Goodall, who underlines the importance of a genuine debate hearing – being overseen by independent experts from the relevant fields of scientific expertise, who will judge which of the two opposing scientific positions is correct.
UAR are not interested in medical truth. Parliamentary EDM 400 draws attention to their empty ‘Concordat On Openness On Animal Research’, which proclaims to develop communications with the media and public, but in reality hides from rigorous scientific scrutiny, preferring instead to attempt to mislead young minds by organising unmoderated debates at university debating societies, about a life and death issue, with no qualified independent experts on hand to guide the event and judge the debate’s conclusions.
Thank you to Peter Egan for his quick tweets helping people understand that the ‘Big Animal Reearch Debate’ – @animalarguments – is a big con and not to be trusted.
We should also point out that the title ‘Animal Research’ is deliberately twisting the use of a term employed by scientists who research the wild lives of animals – including the Jane Goodall Institute. Animal research is like human research: it is always for the benefit of the research subject, and conducted with their full consent. Animal experimentation is the term that UAR should be using, like human experimentation: this always harms the subject and is never conducted with their consent. Please visit this medical blog by Ray Greek MD for more light on the use of these important meanings.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION TO HELP!
Please ask your MP to sign Parliamentary EDM 400, which call for a genuine medical debate hearing about false claims that animal experiments can predict the responses of human patients. Simply type in your post code at this link to write to your MP today!