Click here to load reader
Upload
all-animal-rights
View
424
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Our closest relatives
Primates may have some similarities with humans, but biologically they're still a different species
At a first glance, primates are reasonable test subjects for human medicine. They
have similar limbs, can walk on two legs, and posess s skull with some similarities, as
well as reflecting some human behaviour.
The reality is that monkey experiments are relevant only to the breed of monkey
they are practised on - not to other species or humans. This is particularly true of
experiments on the brain, including for illnesses like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and
even schizophrenia, and for developing new drugs. Monkeys offer nothing more that
superficial similarities, complex differences and none of these avenues for progress.
They also present a number of risks.
A track record of failure: Monkey reaction to drugs and chemicals are - like all animal experiments - relevant
only to that species. There's big differences between conclusions drawn for primate
labs and human experience. PCP (angel dust), sedates chimpanzees but causes
humans experiences including paranoia. Nitrobenzene is toxic to humans but not
monkeys. Human deaths were caused by Isoproterenol, so attempts were made to
reproduce the effects in monkeys - and they all failed. Carbenoxalone caused water
retention so severe it caused heart failure - much of which was fatal. That could not
be reproduced in lab monkeys either. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tolerated
well by the monkeys it was tested on, but it killed humans. Amrinone, a medication
used for heart failure, was tested on numerous nonhuman primates and released
with confidence. Humans haemorrhaged, as the drug caused failure in their blood
cells responsible for clotting, in 20% of patients taking the medication on a long-term
basis.[1]
Of the main human carcinogens, NONE affect monkeys.[2] Actinomycin-D, the first of
the chemotherapy drugs, kills monkeys.[3] (Read more about cancer tests
here.) Humans die from Hepatitus-B, monkeys just carry the virus.[4] A statistical
assessment of how predictive monkeys are was reached when drugs which cause
birth defects were tried on pregnant monkeys. Seventy percent were passed safe.
[5] (read more on this here) Using a method with such a proven track record of
failure is entirely irresponsible.
Chemical warfare vivisector Wouter Basson, tried a gas on baboons. Soon it became
clear the baboons were not suffering any effects. 'I was very angry. I thought there
was something wrong with the grenade. In a fit of temper, I pulled off my gas mask
and threw it onto the ground. I fell down with the gas mask. Luckily Mijburgh was
outside and could drag me out. I spent three days in hospital. The baboons did not
react at all'.
Brain research
Many people do not have a good working knowledge of how the brain functions, so
the idea of using monkeys for brain research seems a plausible one. The reality is
that like all organs, the brain is specific to each species. No monkey has a brain with
main areas in the same proportion as humans, or even with all the main areas
humans have.
In macaques the pre motor cortex and the motor cortex are similar areas, but in
humans the pre-motor is six times as large.[6] This massive difference throws a
spanner into the works regarding using macaques for brain research, but their
continued use shows only that animal experimenters will settle for this poor method.
In humans 29% of the brain surface is the frontal area, but in baboons this area is
9.5%, and even less in Capuchin monkeys and marmosets.[7] Studies on rhesus
monkeys in the 1980s showed our sensory cortex to be very different, and the
thalamus (which relays messages to the brain) is different in structure in humans
from every known animal.[8]
Damage to the brain causes different problems too. Damage to a specific part of the
supplementary motor system in humans causes loss of speech and muscular
response. Monkeys lose only minor function.[9] Damage the parietal lobes in humans
and they cannot make skilled movements. Monkeys suffer temporary, slight loss of
muscular function.[10] But it is not only the parts of the brain which are different -
even the blood circulates in a different way: 'the completeness of the circle of Willis
and the singleness of the anterior cerebral arterial system in the monkey point up
significant differences within the cerebral circulation itself as between the human
being and the subhuman primate'.[11]
The idea that a monkey brain is a scaled down version of the human brain is just not
reasonable. Add in the facts that some area of the human brain (e.g. abstract
thought, speech) are not in the monkey, and that lab primates cannot explain how
they are feeling or reacting, and this is obviously a blind alley in terms of research. It
has failed to build the detailed maps of the human brain it intended to,[12] and will
always do so. It also means inducing human illnesses in monkeys will fail. Attempts
to induce Alzheimer's using tissue from human patients gave the monkeys no
Alzheimer's, but a form of BSE instead.[13] Attempts to induce a condition similar to
Parkinson's failed, and the monkeys recovered.[14] (Read more anbout Parkinson's
here)
Schizophrenia has proved impossible to mimic in the lab because monkeys behave
differently and do not interact with the human environment in the same way.[15] As
the field of genetics emerges, the differences it reveals add more problems to the
vivisectors. A vivisectors handbook admits that although many human diseases are
known to be caused by a defect in a single gene, no illnesses caused by single genes
have ever been shown in any monkey species.[16] Research into HIV and AIDS in
primates has proved a fruitless failure(read more here),which has consumed massive
resources.
Instead of monkey experimentsA common claim is that although imperfect for studying human illnesses, monkey
brains are the best we have and there are no real options. The options available for
the expert wanting to study the human brain are actually enormous. Patients,
accident victims and healthy humans offer masses of opportunities, but the
advancing technology means clinical study is possible in an area impossible before.
Electroencephalograms (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI (fMRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopy
(MRS), Positron emission topography (PET), single photon emission computed
tomography (SPECT), event-related optical signals (EROS) and transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS) have revolutionised brain research. You can read more about
this here.
Devoting more time and resources into these would yield infinitely more results than
investment in monkey experiments. As these methods emerge, their capabilities
become increasing apparent, but it would be incorrect to think that they may one
day make primate brain research obsolete. That point has been passed.
"But today the neurological theatre or the clinical investigation unit is in
fact a superbly equipped laboratory, with the important advantage that its
experiments are carried out on man rather than the guinea pig". This
statement was made in recognition of that point having been passed already - and it
was made in 1971.[17] The improvement in technology since that date has made the
continuation of these vivisections indefensible.
Biohazard?Apart from being entirely useless for medical science, monkey experiments present
a threat of consequences far worse than wasted money and delayed progress. The
threat of cross species contamination from experiments using monkey blood and
body parts is enormous. It has already happened. The SV-40 virus, a monkey virus,
has contaminated polio vaccines. This was caused by growing the vaccine on a
culture of monkey kidney cells. The virus has been found to be influential in
developing cancer, and has been found in many tumours, especially brain and bone
cancers.[18]
Virologist Dr J. Allen commented on this risk when discussing primate to human
transplants: 'We assume, as given, that these primates carry pathogens that are
infectious to humans. You assume that it's something that can kill you. But then in
the next breath we turn around and ship a baboon up to Pittsburgh, they open it up,
probably every human in the OR [operating room] is exposed to whatever is in there,
and they stick it into a human. Does that seem rational?'[19]
Dr M. Michaels from the University of Pittsbugh, a forerunner in cross species organ
transplants has explained that 'most often these infections are latent organisms and
are often clinically silent in the donor',[20] which means it is not obvious that the
monkey has it, but it may be a killer. Dr Allen has also reminded us that it is 'well
established that most new emerging human infectious diseases have their origin in
other species'.[21]
Worst still, says Dr Allen, some will prove impossible to detect. He claims that none
of the screening methods, registries, surveillance etc, 'would pick up on an AIDS like
virus...[Organ transplant experiments] constitute a threat to the general public
health and not merely a complication of the risk/benefit calculation for the individual
xenogenic tissue recipient...Do not use non-human primates as organ donors if you
don't want to infect the human population'.[22]
The problem is that it would not even need an organ transplant to make this a
reality. Staff working with the monkeys could make the contamination a reality. A
variant of HIV (HIV-2) is so similar to the primate virus SIV, that a primate source is a
highly likely candidate for its origin. Lab workers exposed to monkey blood infected
with SIV have tested positive for SIV, which is known to cross species barriers.[23] If
it has not already happened, the threat it poses is a massive and terrifying risk.
HTLV-2 causes leukaemia in humans, and is thought to have originated in monkeys
as STLV. The Marburg virus, transmitted by monkeys, killed seven people in the
1960s.[24] Patients lost mental function, bled from all orifices, fell into coma and
died after heart failure. Ebola also causes bleeding from all orifices, and is believed
to have come from monkeys. As Jaap Goudsmit, who discovered Type-D simian
endogenous retrovirus in baboons explained, his find was 'scary...it's one of those
viruses that might be activated in a new host'.[25] The evidence of a threat is
obviously there, and is a potential carnage. Is it really worth the risk for such a maze
of dead ends and pointless experiments?
The knowledge gulf
As with so many aspects of vivisection, there's a massive gulf between what the
public and authorities can be conned into believing, and the reality. But the truth is
also easy to demonstrate and simple to back up. The answer to this problem, as
always, is education.
References
[1] Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272. Br J of Pharm, 1969, Vol. 36; p35-
45. Inman, W. H., Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980. Am Rev
Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890. Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p
896. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1965, vol. 7; p1-8. Americans
for Medical Advancement, Press Conference, 28 August 2000.
[2] Lancet, 9 Aug 1952, p274.
[3] Sokoloff, B., Cancer, New Approaches, New Hope, Devin-Adair Co.,
1952.
[4]Americans for Medical Advancement, Press Conference, 28 August 2000.
[5] Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, J. A. McLachlan, R. M.
Pratt, C. L. Markert (Eds), 1987, p313.
[6] J. H. Kass and M. F. Huerta 'The subcortical visual system of primates'
in Comparative Primate Biology (vol 4): Neurosciences ed. by H. S. Steklis
and J. Erwin, 1988, p606.
[7] Markowitch 'Prefrontal Cortex' in Comparative Primate Biology, (vol 4):
Neurosciences, ed. by H. S. Steklis and J. Erwin, 1988, p102.
[8] Dr Simmons in Comparative Primate Biology (vol 4): Neurosciences, by
H. s. Steklis and J. Erwin, 1988, p196.
[9] Reymond in Comparative Primate Biology (vol 4): Neurosciences, by H.
S Steklis and J. Erwin, 1988, p605.
[10] Dr Hepp-Reymond in Comparative Primate Biology (vol 4):
Neurosciences, ed by H. S. Steklis and J. Erwin, 1988 p605.
[11] R. J. White and M. S. Albin, 1962 Journal of Surgical research, Vol 2,
pp15-18.
[12] F. Crick and E. Jones, Nature, 1993, Vol 361, pp109-110.
[13] J. Goudmit, 1983, Lancet, i.187.
[14] A. Williams, 1990, BMJ, vol 301, pp301-2.
[15] H. Gottesfield, 1979, Abnormal Psychology,
[16]Human Primates in Biomedical Research: Biology and Management.
[17] H. Miller, The Lancet, 1971. pp109-110.
[18] Yahoo News, www.yahoo.com, 'Monkey virus in humans may trigger
cancer: experts'.
[19] L. Garrett, The Coming Plague, Penguin 1994.
[20] Transplantation, 1994;57:1-7.
[21] Nature Medicine, Jan 1996, vol 2, no 1, pp18-21.
[22] Quoted in L. Garrett The Coming Plague, Penguin, 1994.
[23] J. NIH Research, 1992;4:37-40. J Virology, vol 71, no 5, May 1997. J Gen
Vigy 1. MMWR, 1992;678.
[24] J. A. Martini and R. Siegert, 'Marburg Virus Disease',Springer-Verlag,
1971.
[25] J Virology, May 1997.