thee_shadow (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} thee_shadow) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} anti_vivisction,@ 2007-05-17 20:16:00 |
|
Cancer Research and Animal Testing
Are We Mice, or Are We Men?
Cancer research scientist Irwin D.J. Bross, Ph.D., director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York, attributes the public's lack of knowledge about cancer to misleading animal studies: "Not a single new drug for the treatment of human cancer was first picked up by an animal model system...the results of animal model systems for drugs or other modalities have done nothing but confuse and mislead the cancer researchers who have tried to extrapolate from mice to man. Moreover, when they have been used to guide clinical research they have sent investigators on one long and costly wild goose chase after another. Thus, scientifically speaking, the animal studies are a fraud. Privately, they [vivisectors] will concede that animal models don't work, but they shrug this off because nothing works."(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.)
Critical Differences
Research chemist Dr. Edward Sharpe points out that cancer tumors found in animals are of a completely different nature from those found in humans.
Most animal cancers arise in the bone, connective tissue, or muscle (sarcomas), whereas most human cancers arise in living membranes (carcinomas).(The Star, Johannesburg, South Africa, April 10, 1981.) Furthermore, animals confined to small laboratory cages, repeatedly manipulated, and otherwise subjected to pain and stress make very poor "models" of human cancer patients. Such animals are often heavily irradiated in attempts to give them cancer tumors, or are given highly concentrated doses of substances that a human being would never be exposed to.
Former American Cancer Society president Dr. Marvin Pollard has acknowledged the problems with animal studies. "My own belief is that we have relied too heavily on animal testing, and we believed it too strongly. Now, I think we are commencing to realize that what goes on in an animal may not necessarily be applicable to humans."(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.)
Technologies and Treatments
There are many sophisticated non-animal research methods that can be used in the development of treatments for cancer patients. Technologies using human tumor cells have recently been developed by researchers at NCI. Today we also have extremely complex computer systems like "HUMTRN" that can be used to test the effects of drugs on the human body. These alternatives show researchers the possible side effects such drugs would have on the entire human system.
Of the three basic treatment methods available to people diagnosed with cancer today--surgical removal, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy--not one is guaranteed effective. If a cancer does become remissive after one of these treatments, there is no assurance that it will not reappear. Because they irradiate or poison normal tissues as well as cancerous ones, radiation and chemotherapy treatments can both cause additional cancers as well as unbearable side effects. Typical side effects include nausea, hair loss, serious infections, bleeding sores around the mouth, soreness of the gums and throat, and ulceration and bleeding of the gastrointestinal tract.(Moss, Ralph W., The Cancer Syndrome, 1980, pp. 51-75.)
In a clinical study of women treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer, "42 percent receiving a single drug and 79 percent on multiple drug treatment said that side effects were severe enough to interfere with their lifestyle, whilst 29 percent of patients receiving several drugs voluntarily added (on the questionnaire) that treatment was 'unbearable' or 'could never be gone through again.'"(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.) Drug-based cancer treatments enable some patients to live longer, but this often only prolongs their suffering.
There are many nontoxic, noninvasive treatments for cancer, particularly nutrition-related treatments. Unfortunately, these methods are often overlooked or suppressed by proponents of the more lucrative, "traditional" cancer therapies, i.e., those that involve the production and sale of drugs. Dr. Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, stated that "everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud" and that "a new idea has not been allowed into this system in 20 years" because of the influences of vested interest groups (Chowka, Peter Barry, "Cancer Research, The $20 Billion Failure," East-West Journal, March 1981).
After spending decades researching cancer survival statistics, Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley, came to this unexpected conclusion: "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims usually live up to four times longer than treated individuals."(Chowka, Peter Barry, "Cancer Research, The $20 Billion Failure," East-West Journal, March 1981.) Clearly, our medical system must go beyond archaic animal studies and focus its attention on more sophisticated, human-based technologies and emphasize programs designed to prevent cancer altogether.
Found this here: http://www.crueltyfree.com/blog/view/id
Are We Mice, or Are We Men?
Cancer research scientist Irwin D.J. Bross, Ph.D., director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York, attributes the public's lack of knowledge about cancer to misleading animal studies: "Not a single new drug for the treatment of human cancer was first picked up by an animal model system...the results of animal model systems for drugs or other modalities have done nothing but confuse and mislead the cancer researchers who have tried to extrapolate from mice to man. Moreover, when they have been used to guide clinical research they have sent investigators on one long and costly wild goose chase after another. Thus, scientifically speaking, the animal studies are a fraud. Privately, they [vivisectors] will concede that animal models don't work, but they shrug this off because nothing works."(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.)
Critical Differences
Research chemist Dr. Edward Sharpe points out that cancer tumors found in animals are of a completely different nature from those found in humans.
Most animal cancers arise in the bone, connective tissue, or muscle (sarcomas), whereas most human cancers arise in living membranes (carcinomas).(The Star, Johannesburg, South Africa, April 10, 1981.) Furthermore, animals confined to small laboratory cages, repeatedly manipulated, and otherwise subjected to pain and stress make very poor "models" of human cancer patients. Such animals are often heavily irradiated in attempts to give them cancer tumors, or are given highly concentrated doses of substances that a human being would never be exposed to.
Former American Cancer Society president Dr. Marvin Pollard has acknowledged the problems with animal studies. "My own belief is that we have relied too heavily on animal testing, and we believed it too strongly. Now, I think we are commencing to realize that what goes on in an animal may not necessarily be applicable to humans."(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.)
Technologies and Treatments
There are many sophisticated non-animal research methods that can be used in the development of treatments for cancer patients. Technologies using human tumor cells have recently been developed by researchers at NCI. Today we also have extremely complex computer systems like "HUMTRN" that can be used to test the effects of drugs on the human body. These alternatives show researchers the possible side effects such drugs would have on the entire human system.
Of the three basic treatment methods available to people diagnosed with cancer today--surgical removal, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy--not one is guaranteed effective. If a cancer does become remissive after one of these treatments, there is no assurance that it will not reappear. Because they irradiate or poison normal tissues as well as cancerous ones, radiation and chemotherapy treatments can both cause additional cancers as well as unbearable side effects. Typical side effects include nausea, hair loss, serious infections, bleeding sores around the mouth, soreness of the gums and throat, and ulceration and bleeding of the gastrointestinal tract.(Moss, Ralph W., The Cancer Syndrome, 1980, pp. 51-75.)
In a clinical study of women treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer, "42 percent receiving a single drug and 79 percent on multiple drug treatment said that side effects were severe enough to interfere with their lifestyle, whilst 29 percent of patients receiving several drugs voluntarily added (on the questionnaire) that treatment was 'unbearable' or 'could never be gone through again.'"(Bross, Irwin, Ph.D., "Animals in Cancer Research: A Multibillion Dollar Fraud," The A-V Magazine, Nov. 1982.) Drug-based cancer treatments enable some patients to live longer, but this often only prolongs their suffering.
There are many nontoxic, noninvasive treatments for cancer, particularly nutrition-related treatments. Unfortunately, these methods are often overlooked or suppressed by proponents of the more lucrative, "traditional" cancer therapies, i.e., those that involve the production and sale of drugs. Dr. Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, stated that "everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud" and that "a new idea has not been allowed into this system in 20 years" because of the influences of vested interest groups (Chowka, Peter Barry, "Cancer Research, The $20 Billion Failure," East-West Journal, March 1981).
After spending decades researching cancer survival statistics, Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley, came to this unexpected conclusion: "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims usually live up to four times longer than treated individuals."(Chowka, Peter Barry, "Cancer Research, The $20 Billion Failure," East-West Journal, March 1981.) Clearly, our medical system must go beyond archaic animal studies and focus its attention on more sophisticated, human-based technologies and emphasize programs designed to prevent cancer altogether.
Found this here: http://www.crueltyfree.com/blog/view/id
