We are thrilled to pieces to see the new PR company Speaking of Human-Based Research (SOHBR) accepted into the Virgin Media VOOM competition and they’re now at 4th place!!! Please vote for them here and share widely, to help them move into round two.

The urgent need to stop using animal models and start funding scientifically viable research – human-based research – is outlined in SOHBR’s excellent video pitch, which features award winning oncologist Dr Azra Raza and the president of our medical Board, Dr Ray Greek.

Please watch SOHBR’s pitch below, then please vote for them here – and share widely!

 

Incompetent article about science actually fails human patients and animals

A disappointing article fails humans and animals by suggesting that animal models may have helped in the past, and have not yet been ‘evaluated sufficiently’. This ignores current medical facts that should be being promoted by all who want to help human patients and animals. The article is called ‘The necessity of animal research does not mean it’s ethical‘ and is written by Samual Garner, a bioethicist who is an associate fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.

We oppose the use of animals in medical research, and provide the following comments on the article which we hope will help those who wish to speed up the arrival of cures for human patients, and help stop the suffering of lab animals.

The article falsely states:

‘Despite strong claims about the historical benefits of animal research from the scientific community, the accuracy of animal models in predicting human responses has not been evaluated sufficiently’

In fact, the predictive value of animal models for human patients has been evaluated very thoroughly  by our experts at the leading medical Board Americans and Europeans for Medical Advancement, whose Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT) – comparable to The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity – provides exact science explaining why animals always have failed – and always will fail – human patients in the search for cures to diseases, and the safety testing of new human medicines. We’re disappointed that the author of this article is not familiar with up-to-date medical science and we will be writing to him in due course.

The article continues with this false statement:

‘This does not mean that animal research has never produced any or even many important medical benefits, but these claims require empirical validation, not simply repeated assertion’.

In fact animal models have consistently de-railed human medical research since 1847, when animal experiments were first institutionalised by Claude Bernard who went on to oppose The Theory of Evolution. For fifty examples of animal models that have led to human deaths please visit this link. For more information on the devastating harm caused by animal experiments to human patients please visit our medical experts at AFMA/EFMA. The overwhelming harm caused to humans by the persistent use of veterinary principles, via animal models, is also recognised by pharmaceutical companies, who write about the failure of animal models in their drug development process openly and often in the scientific literature; please visit this link for extensive and referenced quotes.

The article continues by falsely suggesting:

‘It also means that scientists and science agencies should be much more aggressive about seeking and funding alternatives to animals in research’.

The scientific truth is that there is no alternative to animal models because they do not work. But this author believes that animal experimentation may have medical value for humans, so he asks for ‘alternatives’, which are part of the false 3Rs system promoted by the PR company for animal experimentation ‘Understanding Animal Research’. Asking for ‘alternatives to animal models’ is typical of those who have no grasp of up-to-date medical understanding The correct medical name for sound science – which has predictive value for humans – is valid or viable; and there are many such methods available today. These are not alternatives.

The article continues:

‘To say that animal models are “necessary” when alternatives are not aggressively pursued seems a bit dishonest. And given the amount of harm caused to animals in research—whether you think it’s justified or not—we should all want the alternatives field to grow’.

This is scientifically wrong. It is not justifiable to uses animals in medical research because the experiments also kill humans. Decades of practical evidence supports this medical position but the author of this article ignores this, and thereby fails the very cause he purports to be trying to help. If you want to help animals you need to advertise current scientific facts – and up-to-date medical knowledge is not just on the side of human patients, it’s also on the side of lab animals. Animal models are now proven to have never worked in the first place: MPs are signing Parliamentary EDM 373, which calls for animal modellers to agree to debate our medical experts who can supply the necessary medical proof – judged by independent experts – so that animal experiments can, and will, stop.

If you haven’t done so already please ask your MP to sign EDM 373 and help the accelerate the realisation of this important scientific debate hearing.

Introduction

Animal experimentation is sold to society as an alleged human medical practice, which also involves subjecting sentient animals to shocking cruelty that would otherwise be prosecuted outside the environment of a medical research laboratory. Animal experiments are now proven by current medical understanding to also cause – including fatal – harm to human patients, and this evidence is increasingly being highlighted by leading scientific journals, including the British Medical Journal. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies openly acknowledge the failure of animal models in their drug development process and write about this often in the scientific literature.

As a patient advocacy initiative with a growing membership of critically ill people, their families, friends and carers, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of opposing the funding policies of the Dr Hadwen Trust (DTH) which is charity supported by many who also support us, whom we admire and respect. Nevertheless, we feel obliged to speak out and offer the following statement:

The DHT advertises itself as the ‘UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity’, so we were shocked to have recently learnt that over 1/3rd of its scientists are actually animal modelers too, which means that our donations have been supporting those animal labs and their staff. Four of the DHT’s scientists have published results of invasive experiments on mice this year, some of the mice were tumor bearing, others were alleged models of Huntingdon’s disease, others had their kidneys damaged and others were alleged models of prostrate cancer. Three of the scientists used rat and mice cells, but all the scientists claimed that their experiments were predictive of human patients, capable of shedding light on the human situation. Although the DHT are paying these scientists to carry out non-animal work, these researchers will not abandon their animal models. They claim that the ‘whole intact systems of mice’ have important predictive value for humans which is still valuable in medical research today. This position supports their careers, publications and also sustains lucrative grants which support the universities at which they work. And recent Home Office figures confirm that this position has also produced in an all time high number of procedures on laboratory animals, reflecting the money spent and earnt. For more on this money which maintains such false animal models please listen to the recent Talk Radio Europe interview with the president of our medical Board.

We believe that one of the reasons the Dr Hadwen Trust are funding animal modelers is that they are part of the 3Rs system: ‘reduction of animal numbers, refinement of harmful procedures on animals and replacement with alternatives’. The 3Rs are actually promoted by the UK’s PR company for the animal model community ‘Understanding Animal Research‘ and it is for this reason we flag it up. It’s a system which is 50 years out-of-date, introduced half a decade ago by Russell and Burch to encourage ‘humane experimental technique‘ on live animals – surely a contradiction in terms. The 3Rs imposes strict limitations on the language its users can use, thereby avoiding current medical understanding which exposes animal models as also causing serious harm to human patients. We have noticed that many 3Rs users are charities which may be limited by the Charity Commission’s rules about not campaigning politically.

The DHT concentrates on the ‘R’ which stands for ‘replacement with alternatives’. The word ‘alternative’ is employed prolifically on the pages of the DHT’s website, but current medical knowledge now proves that there is no alternative to animal experimentation because it has never worked to begin with. The correct scientific term for human-based research is valid or viable…this is not an alternative.

You’ll see from the animal modelers who are funded by the DHT that they are comfortable using the word alternative, it suggests that their mice models and rat cells are valid for humans – which they claim is true – but in the meantime they can be less cruel to animals by ‘validating an alternative’. This is medical nonsense! Animal models have never been validated in the first place, and human-based methods are not ‘replacements’, they are the only viable option if we are to successfully tackle the increase in crippling diseases afflicting patients and their families today.

In conclusion, all 3Rs users claim that there are times when animal models are still ‘appropriate’, that animal models need to be gradually ‘phased out’ but can be abandoned if a validated ‘alternative exist’ – none of which is true. Animal models do not work, and the funding of animal modelers needs to be abandoned, along with the 3Rs, if the search for effective treatments and cures is to be accelerated.

We hope and trust that our position statement, above, is helpful. There are many medical research funders who do not confine themselves to the 3Rs, and fund human-based research using correct scientific terms. Many of these great causes are listed here, on Animal Aid’s Victims of Charities website.

In closing, we would like to suggest that the DTH develop a programme of funding newly qualified PhDs, who would then be bound to a five year contract that would prevent them stepping onto the animal model ladder. It is completely unnecessary to fund any scientist who experiments on animals, and it is entirely possible develop a funding system outside the 3Rs which can have an immensely positive effect.

Helping universities tick their 3Rs’ ‘alternative’ box to keep the Home Office happy, thereby giving the illusion that your institution is making a difference, actually only helps keep the wheels of false animal models in perpetual motion. We must oppose the 3Rs and use only correct scientific terms if we are to effectively help and heal all involved.

If you haven’t done so already, please ask your MP to sign EDM 373: its vital call for a public, medical science hearing will hear evidence that will be judged by independent experts from the relevant fields of scientific expertise, whose decision can then be submitted to Governments internationally to change the law, (and save them money too!).

For a list of the animal modelers funded by the DHT please visit this link.

Prof. Dominic Wells is making dangerous claims about human medical science that will hurt the effective path of finding cures for muscular dystrophy. He is promoting the purpose breeding of beagle dogs with an illness he advertises as ‘very similar’ to human muscular dystrophy, so that dogs can be treated with drugs that will then be tried out on humans. This ignores every aspect of current medical understanding, which now proves how and why even identical human twins can suffer from entirely different illnesses and require treatments that are specific to their unique genetic profiles. For more please visit this link, or read the Open Letter against using Beagles as surrogate humans in safety testing and medical research, by the president of our medical Board.

We take this opportunity to call Prof. Wells into the medical debate area promoted by MPs signing Parliamentary EDM 373. If Prof. Wells is right, he should jump at the opportunity to prove his claims in a hearing that will have expert judges from the relevant fields of scientific expertise.