Why we oppose the word ‘alternative’

Visit this page to read about the latest state-of-the-art viable research methods for human patients.

Why we entirely oppose the use of the word ‘alternative’, within this context

Using the word ‘alternative’ within the context of ‘replacing’ animal experiments suggests that animal experiments have worked in the first place, and we just need an ‘alternative route to animal model land’ which works ‘better’ than experiments on animals and is also less cruel to animals. From the human patient perspective, current science now proves that animals have never been capable of predicting the responses of humans and will not therefore be able to help to find new treatments or save human lives. So by definition, any ‘alternative’ route to animal model land will automatically arrive at failure too. Failure for human patients must be dropped on its own grounds. Patients Campaigning For Cures does not need alternative routes to animal model land.

The correct term for sound, human-biology based research methods is valid or viable. And although there are many such exciting new research methods which are valid and viable, at the time of writing very few in vitro or in silico methods exist that can predict properties like safety or efficacy, in terms of drug response for human patients. But because animal models offer no predictive value for humans in the first place, requiring tests with predictive value before abandoning animal tests – that offer none – is like continuing to treat schizophrenia with trephination (cutting a hole in the skull), and justifying the practice based on the fact that there is currently no cure for schizophrenia. One of the first rules in medicine is to not make the situation worse and animal models violate that principle.

Read more