Jul21
Animal Testing in the U.K. Is on the Rise
Posted at 02:29 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (29)
 |
To make it all the more frustrating, only 70 percent of toxicity tests—the ones in which animals are deliberately poisoned to test chemicals—were required by law, meaning that nearly 30 percent of these archaic and needless tests could have been abandoned entirely.
While the number of European tests are rocketing up, the numbers of new medical treatments are going down—not to mention that 90 percent of drugs that pass animal trials fail in humans. All of this from a nation that is leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. in approving non-animal testing methods for lab studies.
These numbers show us just how vital it is for compassionate people to take action. If we don't speak up, the suffering of animals will continue to be ignored.
Posted by Shawna Flavell
TAGGED:
Comments
Yes most chemicals put into a living, breathing body will kill you or leave you very, very ill. I'm sick and tired of hearing about these toxicity tests, sooo yesterday and they continue to reap in funds so they can continue to torture and mane their victims. Cosmetics too, it's all BS!! Vivisectionist are just plain sadistic beings without a soul!!
Posted by: Carla* | July 21, 2009 05:05 PM
A Home Office spokesperson tried to justify this Dark Ages Inquisition by callng it ethically correct. If this is their mindset then God help us all!
Posted by: Tania | July 21, 2009 05:23 PM
That photo is very effective. Poor little thing! "Owie, owie, OWIEEE!!!"
Posted by: Rev. Meg Schramm | July 21, 2009 06:43 PM
Both the Labour and Tory party's in the UK have reprehensible records in reference to animal welfare. The Liberal Democrats are much more humane but they lack popular support.
Posted by: Brien Comerford | July 21, 2009 07:48 PM
Very powerful picture to go with this blog.
Posted by: Aneliese | July 21, 2009 08:32 PM
This is so sad! Do you know if the US is better or worst than the UK?
Posted by: Aurie Ingraham-Adie | July 21, 2009 09:10 PM
This just breaks my heart. This is so barbaric, useless and uncalled for. Animal testing has to stop. Look at that poor soul. She should stick herself with that needle.
Posted by: Diane | July 21, 2009 09:50 PM
Every country is guilty Aurie and I am from the united States......
Posted by: CArla | July 21, 2009 09:55 PM
Thank you for reporting this.It just proves we can never let our guard down. And that poor little monkey breaks my heart!How can anyone do that to him.
Posted by: Shari | July 22, 2009 12:29 AM
I used to feel sorry for these animals, but unfortunately we need testing to demonstrate the effectiveness of medicine for humans (who are, no matter how you look at it, above all other animals.) Sorry guys. I think its time to grow up.
Posted by: Ralph | July 22, 2009 12:43 AM
It is sad to see innocent animals suffering like this when criminals are living in better conditions in jail :(
Posted by: fenriz | July 22, 2009 01:22 AM
I am ashamed to hear this news. I live in the UK and politicians have been telling us that animal testing is on the decline... obviously a lie!
Posted by: Helen Dighton | July 22, 2009 04:52 AM
Ralph,
Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.
In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials.
Do some research yourself before you tell others to grow up.
Posted by: Tom | July 22, 2009 09:36 AM
Ralph, you are in la-la land. Animal testing does NOT help humans. Most drugs tested on animals fail in human testing. Non-humans are not the same as humans when it comes to physiology and genetics (similar is just not good enough). Read "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" if you don't want to believe it.
Posted by: Michele | July 22, 2009 10:26 AM
Ralph,
I used to feel sorry for people like you who think that we need animal testing to demonstrate the effectiveness of medicine for humans, but then I think of the animals that are tortured because people like you try to justify the inhuman abuse of animals.
The medical testing profession is filled with borderline to full blown sociopaths who have carried out their experiments in order to make a buck and then proclaim their miracle drugs will cure all manner of diseases. Guess what, many of the medicines I am forced to prescribe (thanks to "standard of care guidelines") have very little impact on long term morbidity and mortality - that all too common Type II diabetic is still going to end up on insulin, have a heart attack, have some degree of renal failure and glaucoma, and possibly need one or more amputations unless they make major lifestyle modifications (much easier for them to take a pill).
There are some beneficial medications out there, but by and large, most medicines are used to treat self-inflicted diseases.
I almost forgot...animal models suck at predicting human response to medicine. Look it up.
Posted by: Derek, MD | July 22, 2009 10:52 AM
Once again, well said Derek, MD!! I hate to think how many people still think like the Ralph's out there. Everyone can do there part no matter how small. Only purchase products with the bunny logo "not tested on animals" on labels and let the ones who still do testing know how you feel. The power of the internet. The animals like the one in the picture depend on us, we're all they got.
Posted by: Carla* | July 22, 2009 02:47 PM
Ralph, At first I thought along the same line. Then I actually did my own reading and followed research papers to see what they might be using the animals for. Amazingly, a large percentage of the work and some of the most harmfull to individual animals proves some really basic things that we already know are true or false. Really, like babies without mothers have high stress levels. ANY mother can tell you a baby without a caring mother is going to have a high stress level. Eating tons of bad food makes you fat and kills you. I think we have that now. I'd like to see a start to better testing by just eliminating the junk testing and repeat testing of known facts. That would probably eliminate half of the current studies using animals. For example studies to determine if dog food is safe for dags. You could simply survey owners of dogs that use the food. Why the heck do dogs need to be caged for life and 'studied' in a lab when real life examples are availble. If it takes a child's mind to understand that testing on animals is bad for the animals then I prefer to remain young.
Posted by: Joanna | July 22, 2009 03:04 PM
It would be better if they just tested it on humans.
Posted by: kurt | July 22, 2009 05:37 PM
Makes me ashamed to be British, i thought we were more of an animal friendly country but obviously not. The comments made by Carla are spot on we can all do our bit, all my products from household products, cosmetics even hairdye none of it is tested on animals, there are some great sites on the net so theres no excuse to test on animals anymore. There is a great little site i use often and on all their products they have a moto, Not tested on animals just friends and family, i think thats says it all.
Posted by: Lisa Atinson | July 23, 2009 03:23 AM
I am a type II diabetic who has made major lifestyle changes to get my blood sugar under control.
I swim 200 laps in our complex pool every day, or walk 10 laps around our complex, or on the Santiago Creek trail with my dog Buck, whatever the weather permits. Since it's routinely over 100 degrees right now I swim and Buck lies in front of the fans at home and swims in his baby pool.
I also take metformin twice a day, and am a volunteer in a study testing a new diabetes medication.
All together I've lost over 25 lbs and am still losing, and my sugar levels are under much better control.
And yes, I am changing my diet, am phasing out meat (my Dr. told me to take it slow) which has helped my cholesterol levels (at last test they were normal for the first time in years).
I guess this makes me an UNCOMMON type II diabetic.
Posted by: Rev. Meg Schramm | July 23, 2009 11:09 AM
we should boycott all the drugs made by pharmaceutical companies to show our support for these mistreated animals. i will wait until a company start making drugs without any animal test.
Posted by: Samer | July 23, 2009 12:57 PM
Makes no sense at all...
Posted by: MILLAN | July 23, 2009 01:08 PM
Rev. Meg,
I commend you on your dedication to your health, and agree that it puts you in "uncommon" territory when it comes to most of my patients with Type II DM. Your lifestyle modifications (notably the weight loss and exercise with dietary changes) WILL reduce your risk of complications more than any of the medications you are taking (I am sure there is an ACE-inhibitor (or ARB), statin, and ASA on your medication list as well). Keep up the great work!
Lifestyle modifications are cruelty-free!
Posted by: Derek, MD | July 23, 2009 01:18 PM
If you hate animal testing so much, why don't you volunteer to be a test subject?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2009 06:46 PM
People trying out the Engine 2 vegan diet are enjoying some astounding drops in cholesterol:
http://www.theengine2diet.com/28-day-results/
Your body is capable of manufacturing on its own whatever cholesterol you do need. It's not necessary to obtain extra from food sources (i.e. animal products).
Posted by: Mike Quinoa | July 23, 2009 07:31 PM
I participated in many research studies so I could afford to pay rent or buy food in medical school - after I got a reactive pneumonitis from a bronchoscopy, I pretty much called it quits. Of course, that outcome was much better than one of my friends who had a non-sedated colonoscopy...
Posted by: Derek, MD | July 24, 2009 07:42 AM
can anyone else give me a better way of testing chemicals and such before putting them out there?
Posted by: mike | July 25, 2009 11:25 AM
oh dear-ashamed to be british! there must be some other way we can test things without this kind of nonsense going on.
Posted by: kathryn | July 26, 2009 10:06 PM
This is apsolute unhumanity, no need for experiments, and no need for just speeking, needs acting too...and mr. Mike always there r another ways of testing, but noone wanna spent more money for that, insteed of that they just catch one innocent animal and put the needle in him and its over if he died or not it dosnt matter, it would be ok to test on animals but only if they could speek and say YES U CAN MAKE TESTINGS ON ME, and to mr. Anonymous with the 5th post above me, I would take testing on me why not, better on me who CAN say yes or no then on that unconscious animals, so if u got some testing goinn on what shoud be doinn on a animal pls tell me on my mail so if I can ill take the testing on me insteed on the animal
Posted by: Goran | July 27, 2009 02:03 PM