The Guests Inmates
from Shamrock
There is no evidence to suggest that
experiments actually take place at Shamrock. However, Shamrock (G.B.)
Ltd., breed and import monkeys to be sold on to laboratories for
vivesection.
The BUAV estimate that in the ten
years to 1992, Shamrock sold 40 to 50,000 monkeys to research
labs.
While the photographs below cannot
be shown to be of Shamrock monkeys, they do give a representation of
what may lie in store for many of them. No captions are
needed.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH
VIVISECTION?
It has been claimed that
experimentation on animals is vital to improve human health. It is
suggested that without vivsection, no new drugs would be developed as
it would be impossible to safety test them. These are strong
arguments, but I would suggest, seriously flawed. Animal experiments
not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, they also
fail to predict the effects of drugs on people. The evidence speaks
for itself. The drugs mentioned below were "safety tested" on
animals:
- Thalidomide This was given to pregnant women suffering from
morning sickness. It caused around 10,000 birth defects world
wide.
- Opren An anti-arthritic drug which was withdrawn after
at least 70 human deaths and 3,500 other serious side effects
including: damage to skin, stomach, kidneys, liver eyes and
circulation.
- Chloramphenicol This antibiotic caused fatal blood disorders in
humans but not in laboratory animals.
- Teroptren This anti cancer drug was tested using up to
18,000 mice. It was then used to treat children with leukemia but
the children died more quickly than would have been expected had
the drug not been used.
- Clioquinol Anti-diarrhoeal drug. Caused thousands of cases
of blindness in Japan and many deaths worldwide.
- Osmosin This anti-inflamtory drug was withdrawn after 650
reported serious side effects and 20 deaths.
- Dosulepin Anti- depressant drug. Side effects include:
jaundice; anaemia; short term memory loss; convulsions and slurred
speech.
- Manoplax Heart drug withdrawn less than a year after its
launch following clinical trials which suggested a link to
increased deaths and hospital admissions. Extensive testing on
cats and dogs failed to predict the problem in humans.
- Eraldin Heart drug given to patients for 4 years before
the side effects of blindness and stomach troubles were
identified.
The problem is that the anatomy and
physiology of mammals are different to eachother. We all react in
different ways to different substances.
|
.......Drug................................................Effect
|
.
|
Humans
|
Guinea
Pigs
|
Cats
|
Dogs
|
Monkeys
|
|
Alcohol excess
|
cirrhosis of the liver
|
no effect
|
.
|
.
|
no effect
|
|
Aspirin
|
relieves pain
|
causes birth defects
|
causes death
|
causes birth defects
|
causes birth defects
|
|
Botulinum
|
causes death
|
.
|
no effect
|
.
|
.
|
|
Chloroform
|
anaesthetizes
|
.
|
causes death
|
.
|
.
|
|
Digitalis
|
heart drug
|
.
|
raises blood pressure
|
.
|
.
|
|
Lemon juice
|
no effect
|
.
|
causes death
|
.
|
.
|
|
Morphine
|
calms and anaesthetizes
|
.
|
causes manic excitement
|
.
|
.
|
|
Novalgin
|
anaesthetizes
|
.
|
causes excitement
|
.
|
.
|
|
Penicillin
|
antibiotic
|
causes death
|
.
|
.
|
.
|
|
Tuberculin
|
causes TB
|
cures TB
|
.
|
.
|
.
|
|
Strychnine
|
causes death
|
no effect
|
.
|
.
|
no effect
|
With acknowledgement to SNGP for the information.
|
In addition, it has now been suggested that becaused the
development of disease occurs differently in different animals,
vivisectors are actually delaying the discovery of new drugs.
An article in the "New Scientist" of
September 1999 explains how Andy Maniotis of the University of Iowa
believes that the discovery of the "strange" vascular systems
associated with cancer would have come to light earlier if scientists
had not been so dependent upon animals experimentation. He says that
scientists will have to think again about how much animal studies
tell us about cancer in people. "People are very complacent with
their animal models, but this begs the question of whether there is a
good model for cancer".
Vivisection is "bad
science". But there also remains the ethical question. Do we
have the right to cause pain and suffering to animals in order to
increase our knowledge? Vivisectionists would no doubt say yes. An
increasing proportion of the population are beginning to say no.
History teaches us that the belief that those beings considered
"beneath us" do not have rights is extrememly dangerous. Surely, if
an animal is considered to be sufficiently similar to us as to make
it a viable scientific model, it must be too close a relative to
abuse. Where should the line be drawn?
Still not convinced? Try this next page.
If you arrived at this page by way of a search
engine and you would like to view the rest of the site,
please click here.
|
