Campaigning with scientific experts for personalised medicine: effective treatments and cures tailor made "for the patient by the patient".
There’s a huge rally happening in Hull tomorrow, against Beagle breeders B&K Universal, who lie about human medical understanding in order to breed thousands of dogs annually for experiments that happen in our name – but actually cause appalling problems for patients.
Have a listen to Louise Owen, she’s articulate, bright and honest – and although the interview is short, it addressed all the questions with admirable focus:
Campaigners are gathering in their hundreds – on Saturday 10th Sept in Hull – to march with Beagles in a ‘Procession for Medical Reform’, following Greg Clark MP’s decision to now allow around 2,000 Beagles to be purpose bred annually, in horrific experiments that are now proven to also cause – including fatal – harm to human patients.
Have a listen to the special Alex Irving, Director of Speaking of Human-Based Research, in her live interview for BBC Radio Humberside, advertising the march on Saturday, and explaining why medical research reform for patients is SO URGENTLY NEEEDED:
To attend the march in Hull on Saturday please visit the event’s facebook page.
The new PR company Speaking of Human-Based Research (SOHBR) has posted a summary of the terrible burden on national economies caused by the rise in chronic illnesses with no effective treatments and cures in sight. To read this important article please visit this link.
SOHBR were placed 2nd in round one of the Virgin Media VOOM new business competition, and this led to a wonderful live pitch to the VOOM judges, below:
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!
As founder of PCFC, and a patient with multiple sclerosis, I am affected by the results of experiments on animal models every day, and there is no relief. Animals are now proven to be the reason medical research is getting nowhere fast. When this evidence was heard in 2002, at a planning inquiry to decide whether Cambridge University should be allowed to build a new primate lab on Green Belt land, our medical experts defeated that laboratory with a precedent ruling on ‘national interest medical and scientific grounds’. Please visit this link to read more about that landmark decision.
The new action page for #EDM373 explains this medical understanding and offers a new letter for you to send your MP, to help him/her understand why this is so important.
The famous actors Peter Egan and Lesley Nicol – stars of Downton Abbey and much more! – are helping call for the EDM’s scientific debate hearing. Please click this link and send your letter today, it simply asks your MP to support a fair public scientific debate and no one can argue with that!
We’re delighted that the acclaimed actor and Downton Abbey star Peter Egan has published an important post on penicillin, the life-saving medicine highlighted in Parliamentary EDM 373, arguably the most important example of a cure derailed by animal models. To read Peter Egan’s post please visit this link.
Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin and understood the harm caused to human patients by animal testing:
‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized’. [1]
Howard Florey also played a crucial role in bringing about the use of penicillin for humans; here is Florey on animal models:
‘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. [2] (Emphasis added).
To read a brief history on the discovery of penicillin and the shocking role animal models played in delaying this life-saving medicine for humans, please visit this link.
References
1. Parke DV: Clinical Pharmacokinetics in Drug Safety Evaluation. ATLA 1994, 22:207-209.
2. Florey H: The advance of chemotherapy by animal experiment. Conquest 1953, 41:12.
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.
Dodds Polling have interviewed 95 MPs and 90 of those support the need for a thorough medical science hearing, to expose false claims that animal models can predict the responses of human patients. Please visit the new PR company Speaking of Human-Based Research who commissioned the poll, or this link to read the Dodds Poll directly.
This is an important milestone for Parliamentary EDM 373 which cites current medical understanding and calls for a properly moderated public scientific debate to move medical research away from the grip of veterinary principles, which are now proven to kill human patients.
Introduction
We’re a relatively new initiative run by patients for patients, but our medical Board is the leading in its field, having published five books on the human cost of experiments on animals and 20 papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature, proving how and why the results of experiments on animals will never be able to predict the responses of human patients. Our medical Board secured the first, and to date only, precedent ruling against animal experimentation on ‘human medical and scientific, national interest grounds’ – this stopped a primate lab being built at Cambridge University in 2002. We’re delighted to be highlighted in Parliamentary EDM 373 so that MPs can call for our experts’ evidence to be heard again, only this time at a more thorough medical debate hearing which will be overseen by independent judges from the relevant fields of scientific expertise. Those judges will be able to submit their ruling to Governments internationally, in order to change outdated laws which still mandate animal testing, despite its now proven fatal harm to humans.
We’re disappointed but not surprised to receive criticism from the Dr Hadwen Trust after we highlighted their funding of animal modelers. We have sought advice and believe that the heart of the problem lies in their charity status, which means that the DHT must comply with UK Charity Commission rules that forbid political campaigning. Our experience with other charities, that campaign against animal experimentation, is that they are restricted to confining themselves to the 3Rs, and this would explain the reluctance of the DHT to reject the 3Rs approach which is an openly pro-animal model policy, first introduced to ensure ‘humane experimental technique’ on animals, currently enforced by the Home Office and promoted by the PR company for animal models ‘Understanding Animal Research’.
Our medical Board has published the first of an important series of scientific blogs on the urgent need to recognise the dangers posed to patients by aligning with the 3Rs; our experts are highly qualified medical personnel who comment on this issue in that capacity only. Please take the time to read this very important blog, part 1 is here.
Many of you know and admire Dr Andre Menache who has published a new science report this week additionally highlighting the negative ‘huge consequences’ that the 3Rs represent for animal welfare and human patients, excerpt below:
An inherent weakness in all European Union AWERBs (as described in articles 26 and 27 of Directive 2010/63/EU) is the 3Rs framework (replacement, reduction, refinement), which does not challenge the validity of animals as models of human disease research. This legislative loophole effectively allows researchers to conduct animal experiments in the absence of scientific proof that animals are predictive and relevant with respect to human health (2, 3). This major flaw in EU legislation carries with it huge consequences for animal welfare and human disease research.
Dr Menache joined the president of our medical Board, Dr Ray Greek, in testifying at the EU Parliament earlier this year and their scientific evidence was dismissed by the Commission using the 3Rs’s EU legislation. Campaigners who want to succeed in abolishing experiments on animals need to avoid the 3Rs at all costs.
The DHT do what all 3Rs users appear to be confined to do, which is state that there are times when animal models are ‘appropriate’ and can only be ‘replaced’ if there’s an ‘alternative’ available, excerpt from DHT’s website below:
‘The problem many scientists face when designing alternative experimental protocols is that animal use is historically embedded as the ‘gold standard’, whether appropriate or not’. (Emphasis added).
Animal models are never appropriate. They kill people!! And human-based research saves lives – this is the opposite of animal experimentation, not an ‘alternative’. The DHT’ response has shocked us by stating that words and their meanings do not matter. Words and their meanings – especially in medical science – have life and death consequences. This is born out by recent Home Office figures which confirm that under 3Rs’ funding the numbers of procedures on lab animals has risen to an all time high. That’s because funding as ‘alterantives’ supports the language of animal modelers, whose livelihoods and universities depend upon their false claims that animal models save lives too – that mice and humans are ‘alternatives’ for each other. It is naïve to suggest that these animal modelers will be inspired to only conduct valid research because of their funding by the DHT. Mistakenly calling their human-based research an ‘alternative replacement’ supports the original method as viable, and after 50 years of 3Rs funding, Home Office figures continue to reflect this. We need to prove that mice are killing human patients if we are to make any progress, and this is what Parliamentary EDM 373 calls for.
We firmly believe our supporters have a right to know where their donations are being spent. Many have been donating to the DHT without realising that 1/3rd of their funds are paying mice modelers, who are actively promoting papers published this year in which invasive experiments on mice, and experiments using the cells of dead rats and mice, falsely claim to be predictive of humans. These publications appear well within the time frame of the DHT’s funding their authors: it is quite wrong for the DHT to suggest that our donations are not sustaining these animal labs, and the lives and scientific position of their scientists and staff. We are dismayed that the DHT have not been open and honest about this aspect of their funding; it creates a climate of distrust which is not helped by their promotion of the 3Rs.
We would like the DHT to respond to our suggestion that they abandon the 3Rs, stop funding animal labs and begin a programme of funding newly qualified PhD’s who will be bound to a five year contract that will prevent them stepping onto the animal model ladder altogether.
We’re providing a closer analysis of the DHT’s criticism of our position, please visit this link to read a focused text which has been overseen by our doctors.
MPs are signing EDM 373 to call for a thorough scientific debate hearing at which our medical Board will testify. The conditions for this event have been endorsed as “well set out and fair” by Britain’s foremost human rights defence barrister Michael Mansfield QC, and the event will be overseen by independent judges from the relevant fields of scientific expertise. These judges will be qualified to submit their decision/ruling to Governments internationally, and thereby begin the process to effectively change outdated laws which still mandate animal testing, despite it now proven fatal harm to humans.
In 2002, a smaller scale version of EDM 373’s called for science hearing secured a precedent ruling, on ‘national interest medical and scientific grounds’, thereby defeating Cambridge University’s planning application to build a new primate lab. Please visit this link to read about our medical Board’s role as chief scientific witness for the X-CAPE coalition. This primate lab was defeated because correct medical information was submitted and heeded.
We reject the notion that animal experiments will not end ‘overnight’ as the DHT state. We reject their website text which says animal models need to be gradually ‘phased out’. Animal models kill people. If enough of us pulled together with qualified medical expertise we could change laws relatively quickly, as was illustrated by the X-CAPE decision, above. Pressure and willpower would prevail, and the 3Rs would loose their power. If funders like the DHT continue to support animal modelers with the 3Rs, this will not happen.
For our medical Board’s new blog about the 3Rs please visit this link
For a more detailed analysis of the DHT’s criticism of our position, please visit this link
Dr Andre Menache, who testified at the EU Parliament with on May 11th with the president of our medical Board Dr Ray Greek, has published an important new science report against using primates as claimed surrogate humans in medical research. Dr Menache’s report incudes a very important paragraph about the 3Rs’ EU legislation, which blocks progress by entirely failing to challenge the scientific validity of animal models, excerpt below:
An inherent weakness in all European Union AWERBs (as described in articles 26 and 27 of Directive 2010/63/EU) is the 3Rs framework (replacement, reduction, refinement), which does not challenge the validity of animals as models of human disease research. This legislative loophole effectively allows researchers to conduct animal experiments in the absence of scientific proof that animals are predictive and relevant with respect to human health (2, 3). This major flaw in EU legislation carries with it huge consequences for animal welfare and human disease research.
We agree with Dr Menache and entirely oppose the funding human-based research as part of the 3Rs, mistakenly named an ‘alternative replacement’. Human based research saves lives, animal models kill people, they’re opposites, not alternatives to each other. Words have meanings and their meanings have life and death consequences. Please visit this link to read Dr Menache’s report in full.
Please help us effectively challenge the scientific validity of animal experimentation by asking your MP to sign EDM 373, click on the image below, type in your post code go from there!
