Please Note: The website is currently under construction.

Subscribe for updates, exclusives & a FREE eBook! →

The Human Cost of Animal Testing

today we'll address yet another absurdity of animal testing: it not only doesn't help but actually harms, and, in many cases kills humans. maybe you could give a sh*t about animals and don't really care as long as humanity is benefiting. well, animal testing is still something that you should be against. during this video i'm pulling a good bit of information from articles posted on or alluded to by  you may remember from the second nugget on animal testing, that this organization has nothing to do with animal rights and everything to do with human safety. so no accusations of animal rights wingnut-derived information, random youtube commenter.  (there's always that one…)

according to geneticists kathy archibald and pharmacologist robert coleman, adverse drug reactions are a major cause of death killing 197,000 people annually in the european union and 106,000 deaths annually in the us according to a study in leading us medical journal journal of the american medical association and this is for medications that are correctly prescribed and correctly taken by patients. in the case in the us, that's about 290 deaths every day, or one every five minutes. the same study also consider patients who were so badly injured that medication that they needed hospital treatment. these were calculated to be 2,250,000 hospital admissions each year. that's over 6,000 every day or one every fourteen seconds.

currently ninety-two percent of new medications fail at clinical trials even though they have successfully passed animal tests. in 2008, a study in theriogenology volume 69 page 2, concluded, “on average the extrapolated results from studies using tens of millions of animals failed to accurately predict human responses.” in another study in “regulatory toxicology and pharmacology volume 64 page 345, shows that animal tests missed eighty-one percent the serious side-effects of 43 drugs that went on to harm patients.

let's look at two specific examples of how animal testing has harmed humans: the drugs tgn 1412 and vioxx.

tgn 1412 is often referred to as the “northwick park elephant man disaster.” the drug was developed by tegenero immuno therapeutics. in its first clinical trials, it caused catastrophic systematic organ failure despite being administered at a supposed subclinical dose, some five hundred times lower than the dose found safe in animals. six volunteers were hospitalized on 13th of march in 2006. and some, like participant ryan wilson had had toes and fingers amputated. as standard practice in the drug industry tgn 1412 had been through a rigorous animal trials  and had passed. but no worries!  tegenero immuno therapeutics has apologized to the families involved and that makes it okay, right?

now on to vioxx. vioxx is an arthritis medication made by the pharmaceutical giant merck. it was withdrawn from the market after causing the largest medical disaster in history, after animal has indicated that it was entirely safe.  according to doctor david graham, the associate director of the fda's office of drug safety, it was estimated that 88,000-139,000  americans had heart attacks and strokes as a result in taking vioxx. as many as 60,000 of them fatal the physicians committee for responsible medicine explained: “9 of 11 studies on mice and rats had shown vioxx and other cox-2 inhibitors to be safe for animal hearts and blood vessels. in fact six different animal studies- in four different species- showed vioxx was actually protective against heart attacks and vascular disease.

one researcher in a paper published in the 2002 edition of current opinions in lipidology went so far as to suggest that vioxx be considered a treatment for human cardiovascular disease based on these animal tests. in another study from the american heart journal,  a group of researchers who believed that vioxx could protect the heart stated that “these findings have raised the possibility that cox-2 inhibitors could actually decrease the incidence of acute thrombotic events.” in layman's terms animal testing showed that vioxx was protective for hearts, yet when it was used on humans, it caused thousands of fatal heart attacks and strokes. merck's falsely optimistic animal tests led the company to disregard the deadly problems emerging in humans.

now it's not always bad drugs getting through that is the issue. there's also the possibility of helpful drugs not making it market because they have ill effect in animal trials, while they'd be perfectly suited for humans. take for example penicillin and aspirin.  animal testing showed that penicillin was ineffective in treating infected rabbits and it was toxic to guinea pigs. yet later if proved safe and and effective for treating bacterial infections most humans. and aspirin causes birth defects in mice and rats but is harmless to human embryo. had we relied on animal testing as it's conducted today, we would have rejected aspirin.

the craziest part of this whole issue is that there are safer, more effective alternatives that don't leave animals and humans paying the price for bad science.  yet governments continue to mandate animal tests. so there you have it: yet another layer to the absurdity of animal testing.

i'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter.  let me know in the comments!

see ya next nugget!







★Watch More!

Animal Testing Series

Theriogenology (vol 69, p 2)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (vol 64, p 345)'s Article Resources's Quotes from Dr's and Researchers 

How human biology can prevent drug deaths by Kathy Archibald and Robert Coleman

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) fantastic organization working for alternatives

Nab my Free ebook and never miss a nugget when you join the Nugget Newsletter family. Just enter your info below!

Leave a Comment