Medical Doctors & Scientists AGAINST Vivisection - Being the artificial inducement of injury, illness & disease on live animals & humans; 'animal research', 'animal tests', 'animal experiments'.
Medical Scientific Opposition to Vivisection.
Below are quotes from medical doctors and medical researchers who explain why animal experiments are not 'science' and can in fact lead to many dangerous products and procedures that injure and kill millions of humans.
Refer to this article for the most coherent explanation - Why Do Pharmaceutical
Drugs Injure & Kill Millions of Humans? ... The mass-media rarely publishes information like this because it threatens the interests
of the advertising revenue that comes from the pharmaceutical-chemical industries.
"The reason why I am against animal research
is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every
good scientist knows that."
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head
of the Liscensing Board for the State of Illinois, paediatrician & gynaecologist
for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of
numerous awards for excellence in medicine.
"Since there is no way to defend the use
of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts,
they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal
model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollar is that
they can be used to prove anything--no matter how foolish, or false,
or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the
results of animal model systems that there is always some system
which will "prove" a point....The moral is that animal model systems
not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual
evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has
led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director
of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering
Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute,
Dr. Andre Menache: "Good science versus bad science"
Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller M.D.,
"Like every member of my profession, I
was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in
physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our
most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted
from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of
the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do
I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but
I know that it has often led him astray."
Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow
of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed
as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many
of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for
"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and
a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from
other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows
Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of
thirty years, President of German League of Doctors against Vivisection
"Atrocious medical experiments are being
done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on
aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental
purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection.
It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally
renowned researcher, former vivisector.
"Normally, animal experiments not only
fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have
the opposite effect."
Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of
the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.
"Experiments on animals lead inevitably
to experiments on people... As if an animal experiment could ever
predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on
one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another
human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood
pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and
sensitivity and genes and everything else are different... We recognise
that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very
own reactions... Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery
don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know
how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural
intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never
from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals.
Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction
of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive
chemicals, todays medical students are only taught to manipulate
poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc.,
1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International
League of Doctors Against Vivisection.
Excerpt from the 1986 documentary Hidden Crimes regards - The Money Issue - how vivisection researchers approve each other's grants - wasting our taxpayer dollars on unscientific work.
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has
not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those
persons suffering from it."
Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral
"Not only are the studies themselves often
lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds
away from patient care needs."
Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President
of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.
"All our current knowledge of medicine
and surgery derives from observations of man following especially
the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of
the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body.
These observations have led us to discover the connection between
smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol
and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered
on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes,
attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known.
Every discovery derives from
observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals,
and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed
to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives
from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks
gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people.
The same goes for surgery. Surgery
can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different
from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure
and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals
are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility
necessary for operating on humans."
Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director
of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist
in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.
"My own conviction is that the study of
human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most
grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range
of human intellectual activity."
Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.
"Why am I against vivisection? The most important
reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading
and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a
waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially
and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't
get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick
people who can be studied while they're being treated."
Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical
magazine editor, USA.
Excerpt from the 1986 documentary Hidden Crimes regards "vivisection is scientific fraud"
"It is well known that animal effects are
often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to
substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
Dr. A.L.Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical
Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.
"The growing opposition to vivisection is
understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain
culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality
is quite the opposite. Lets take the case of pesticides. These dangerous
products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute
toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This
represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but its an alibi
that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified
as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in
the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified
as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and
used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable
of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only
ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any
carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the
real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory
tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal
tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their
worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries
which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned."
Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at
Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.
"Animal model systems differ from their human
counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied
to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm
to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be
Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S.,
Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery,
UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.
"Experiments have never been the means for
discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in
physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done
more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from
the study of anatomy and natural motions."
Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S.,
discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.
"Experiments on animals do not only mean
torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people.
Vivisection is a double-edged sword."
Major R.F.E.Austin, M.D.,1927, Royal College
of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.
Cawadias (1953) has said that:
"The history of medicine has shown that,
whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result
has been chaos, stagnation and disaster."(British Medical Journal, 8/10/1955).
Why Do Pharmaceutical
Drugs Injure & Kill Millions of Humans?Are We the Real "Guinea-pigs"? . . . Medical journals report that pharmaceutical
drugs injure millions and kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. This article
explains how drug companies: i) use flexible unscientific tests to make their products
look "safe"; ii) can then use those flexible tests as a legal defence to avoid punishment.
Research and Surgery (surgical training). Does practising on animals
make surgeons better? No. In fact, as these leading surgeons explain,
quite the opposite. Were the advances in surgery due to animal research?
No. As these leading surgeons explain.
A History of Western Medicine: From ancient Greece to modern times ... a summary of how human medicine:
i) advanced due to scientific clinical observations of humans; and
ii) was regularly stalled and led astray for millenia due to misleading results from vivisection ... excerpts from a book by the medical historian Hans Ruesch.
Why the Unscientific Practice of Vivisection Continues:Dr Coleman explains: "Drug companies depend on the fact that animal experiments are unreliable in order to get their new products onto the market without testing them properly..." Furthermore, on how animal testing is an easier path for academics and organisations to access grant money and build careers.
Myths of Modern Medicine: The
Increase in the Human Life Span - due to Medicine or Political Social Reforms? This article explains that the great increase in human life span in the developed world (during the 19th and 20th centuries) was due to political social reforms
like better sanitation systems, improved hygiene and nutrition. It was not due to pharmaceutical
drugs or other medical interventions.
Critical look at Animal Experimentation: PDF article from
the Medical Research Modernisation Committee; by Christopher Anderegg, M.D., Ph.D.;
Kathy Archibald, B.Sc.;
Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D.;
Murry J. Cohen, M.D.;
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.;
John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C.
Research Continues:(PDF) Expose
of fraudulent animal rights & welfare groups & their alliance with
the Pharmaceutical-Vivisection Industry. This article shows how these
groups are financially in bed with the drug industry, promote pro-vivisection
information and help suppress the truth about the human damages
and deaths due to the unreliable results of unscientific animal experiments.
for Responsible Medicine: Group of doctors, physicians and
health practitioners promoting good health through real science. http://www.pcrm.org
Against Fraudulent Medical Research (CAFMR): Archive of articles. Information that the pharmaceutical-chemical industry do not want us to know: medical history, medical fraud, psychiatric abuses,
vaccination damage coverups, behind sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) etc. http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr