What is animal testing, or to use a term more emotional, vivisection? I wonder almost every day but even more so when I read news agency Ansa as the launch on 4 January that literally reads "Vioxx was the cause of death or disease than 140,000 Americans, according to research conducted by an FDA scientist. Dr Graham-writes the Financial Times, proposes to disclose his study in the journal "Lancet" against the advice of his superiors and the risk of probable consequences legali.Una publication intended to inform the debate on the effectiveness of U.S. drug regulatory system , who in '99 had approved Vioxx.
Vioxx is a drug product of the German pharmaceutical company Merck, prescribed to more than twenty million people in world.and painkiller that was supposed to "work miracles" without damaging the stomach, but recently withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer after it was discovered that doubled the risk of a heart attack just causing hundreds deaths.
But as can happen if the facts of this kind for each drug, before being put on the market, there is a rigorous and careful testing that involves three stages: the synthesis, testing on animals and finally the men?
Obviously something is wrong in this process: it seems increasingly clear that precisely the stage of animal testing is the weak link in the chain.
E 'is this the key to understanding how to get to distribute a drug that later turns out to be in most cases lethal for humans. It is a methodological error, because it is based on the concept of similarity. "Entrereste in a room with a gas similar to oxygen? you would you do transfusions with a liquid similar to blood? And again, eat food-like substances? "(1) If
similarities and parallels exist between man and animal, and they are indisputable, it is even more true and important that" every species has a DNA and thus their own anatomy, physiology, biochemistry . Which is why the final data of an experiment can not be transferred from one species to another. Not surprisingly, animal tests do not replace the human being but they are just the premise. "(2)
In this way you can prove everything and the opposite of everything and that's what usually happens, unfortunately, often exploiting the results according to the needs of the researcher that the interests of a certain company name dellacompetitività market.
In fact the only real test that can unambiguously verify the effectiveness or the danger of an active substance is that which occurs in humans when the drug is sold.
example of this, among many others, is seeking a General Accounting Office, the U.S., between 1976 and 1985 has reviewed 198 of the 209 new drugs on the market, noting that 51% of them had a "serious risk emerged after approval "and not covered by tests on animals, risks are defined as: reazioniavverse, which could lead to hospitalization, a disability or even death.
Animal experimentation practice is a tragic time for the animals who suffer and for the human beings who are paying heavily the consequences.
January 9, 2005 David Ranzini
Notes: 1 - Maria Rosa Furbelli the Health of the Republic 2 - Interview with Stephen Cagno http://www.scienze.it/
This article, published at: http:// italy.peacelink.org/animali/articles/art_8998.html was repeated in full on Blog Pen Ink , with the consent of the author on March 7, 2007.
Vioxx is a drug product of the German pharmaceutical company Merck, prescribed to more than twenty million people in world.and painkiller that was supposed to "work miracles" without damaging the stomach, but recently withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer after it was discovered that doubled the risk of a heart attack just causing hundreds deaths.
But as can happen if the facts of this kind for each drug, before being put on the market, there is a rigorous and careful testing that involves three stages: the synthesis, testing on animals and finally the men?
Obviously something is wrong in this process: it seems increasingly clear that precisely the stage of animal testing is the weak link in the chain.
E 'is this the key to understanding how to get to distribute a drug that later turns out to be in most cases lethal for humans. It is a methodological error, because it is based on the concept of similarity. "Entrereste in a room with a gas similar to oxygen? you would you do transfusions with a liquid similar to blood? And again, eat food-like substances? "(1) If
similarities and parallels exist between man and animal, and they are indisputable, it is even more true and important that" every species has a DNA and thus their own anatomy, physiology, biochemistry . Which is why the final data of an experiment can not be transferred from one species to another. Not surprisingly, animal tests do not replace the human being but they are just the premise. "(2)
In this way you can prove everything and the opposite of everything and that's what usually happens, unfortunately, often exploiting the results according to the needs of the researcher that the interests of a certain company name dellacompetitività market.
In fact the only real test that can unambiguously verify the effectiveness or the danger of an active substance is that which occurs in humans when the drug is sold.
example of this, among many others, is seeking a General Accounting Office, the U.S., between 1976 and 1985 has reviewed 198 of the 209 new drugs on the market, noting that 51% of them had a "serious risk emerged after approval "and not covered by tests on animals, risks are defined as: reazioniavverse, which could lead to hospitalization, a disability or even death.
Animal experimentation practice is a tragic time for the animals who suffer and for the human beings who are paying heavily the consequences.
January 9, 2005 David Ranzini
Notes: 1 - Maria Rosa Furbelli the Health of the Republic 2 - Interview with Stephen Cagno http://www.scienze.it/
This article, published at: http:// italy.peacelink.org/animali/articles/art_8998.html was repeated in full on Blog Pen Ink , with the consent of the author on March 7, 2007.
0 comments:
Post a Comment