Is animal testing all that bad

Enos the space chimp before insertion into the Mercury-Atlas 5 capsule in This rat is being deprived of restful sleep using a single platform "flower pot" technique. The water is within 1 cm of the small flower pot bottom platform where the rat sits.

Is animal testing all that bad

An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence.

Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses.

In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the isolation of the AIDS virus. Between andlife expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years.

Although animal experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the fact that people are living longer lives.

While experiments on animals have been conducted Is animal testing all that bad the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would not have been made without using animals.

Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals.

Vaccinosis: Health Hazards of Scheduled Animal and Pet Vaccines

No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky.

And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.

Read More Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and human health.

More information about the failure of experiments on animals can be found here. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species and even within a species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys.

And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced.

Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer.

Adverse effects from Animal Vaccination

Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron.

However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4, experimental cancer drugs developed between and found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals.

If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans? The NCI now uses human cancer cellstaken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer.

Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education.

Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives.

We can beat cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to encourage healthier lifestyle choices.

While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U. A review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health.

Is animal testing all that bad

More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world.

No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws.

Between andnearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief.Animal Testing Should NOT Be Banned.

Highlights: “Animal testing in which there is consent, or in which the procedure is beneficial to the patient, is morally acceptable and should not be banned.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

10 macaque monkeys exposed to diesel emissions to see the impact on their bodies

Jan 30,  · Lube products must now meet FDA safety guidelines as a Class II medical device. But does animal testing tell us anything about human safety?

Is animal testing all that bad

we also have information on facebook "deborah parker" or "saint francis animal sanctuary inc". Unreliable animal testing. 90% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work.

Routine, Advanced & 24/7 Emergency Care. The veterinarians and staff at All Pets Animal Hospital & Hour Emergency Care firmly believe in their mission to treat every pet with the same love and quality care they would their own.

About Animal Testing : Humane Society International