The problem of animal experimentation is complex, many-sided
and hard to fathom. The cruel and deadly use of animals has
been legalised by politicians, justified by church institutions,
described as unavoidable by science and industry, accepted
without criticism by too many people not interested in the
sufferings of others, and defended in every way by all those
who gain profit from it.
At one end of the range of opinions stand the animal welfarists
and at the other end the animal exploiters. In between lies
the mass of those who consider animal experiments to be justified
if they themselves appear to stand to gain benefit, health
or some other use from them. These people do not know - and
furthermore do not even want to enquire - whether medical
knowledge is really to be obtained from animal experiments
and whether the results of the experiments can in fact be
used to their own human benefit, in accordance with rational,
scientific criteria.
The fact should not be overlooked that there is a basic difference
in quality between the arguments of the advocates of animal
experimentation and its opponents, inasmuch as opposition
to it does not stem from professional, commercial or personal
interests. The arguments of the pro-vivisectionists, on the
other hand, can at best be viewed, legally speaking, as biased
judgments and not as impartial evaluations. Nobody, for example,
would regard the rejection of vegetarianism by the head of
a butchers' association as an objective and unprejudiced interpretation
of facts!
The claims of success for animal-based research can already
be refuted by one outcome: the general standard of health.
When people are suffering more and more from ill health despite
the billions of animal experiments carried out for their alleged
"benefit"; when there has for years been a three-to-four-per-cent
annual increase in malignant tumours and fatal heart diseases
(these currently accounting for more than two-thirds of all
deaths); when there is a constant rise in the number of adults
and children suffering from incurable allergies; when the
cases of childhood leukaemia and other cancers are increasingly
alarming; and when, with the waiting periods for certain operations
growing, a sort of " class medicine" seems to be
developing - then it is clear that the tests on the countless
masses of involuntary animal victims have not produced any
successful results - or else that the results were falsely
interpreted!
It is nevertheless claimed that most of the existing medical
procedures were discovered through animal experiments. Such
statements are untenable, for the correctly reasoning scientist
can glean nothing more from his experiment than the fact that
a foreign substance has, under the given conditions, produced
a certain reaction in the animal. Any transfer of the result
to the human situation is pure speculation, at best a hypothesis
the practicality of which cannot be evaluated. In every case,
the same experiment has to be repeated on humans, with incalculable
risks and unpredictable results. Only when the results of
the human "experiment" are able to be compared with
the animal experiment can one retrospectively judge whether
the animal-experiment data can be extrapolated at all to humans
and, if so, to what extent. Until then, the extrapolation
ratio is neither known nor able to be calculated. An animal
experiment, therefore, in no way prevents experiments on humans:
in fact, because of its lack of usability, it inevitably leads
to experiments on humans.
Any knowledge of the reactions, effects and tolerability of
substances in the human organism has only been acquired via
the human being and not by means of animals. Even the lawmakers
are of this opinion and consider the simple transference of
any experimental result as an unacceptable risk. They therefore
demand evidence of the effects, safety and harmlessness of
any medicine and medical procedure on HUMANS before its use
is authorised! This evidence is, in accordance with medical
law, provided by means of the standard "clinical testing".
Contrary to the many statements which indicate otherwise,
neither the authorisation of medicaments, nor their so-called
relatively harmless dosages, nor the application of other
procedures or operation techniques in the field of medicine
are based on animal experiments - they depend solely on the
subsequent essential and legally prescribed tests on humans.
It is repeatedly stated - as if there were no such evidence
of the uselessness of animal experiments for predicting the
human tolerability or the safety of medicaments - that substances
for use in new medicaments cannot be tested immediately on
humans but have to be pre-tested on animals "for safety
reasons". But the public-relations effect of this ill-considered
assertion stands in direct opposition to the pharmacological
truth. In such "pre-testings", the substances are
judged as to their tolerability and effects on the basis of
tests on ANIMALS and are then either excluded from further
enquiry or are tested on humans.
The fact that the substances are non-toxic, effective and
tolerable when tested on animals in no way, however, means
that they would also be so in the case of humans. Experience
shows that - regardless of whether the effect is quite different,
non-existent or even exactly the opposite - they can be unpredictably
toxic and intolerable for human beings. Given these circumstances,
it is baffling to know how one is to obtain any assurance
of safety in use, or foreknowledge of the effects on a human
being, from this so-called "safety" animal pre-screening.
The "safety in use" arises only at the legal level,
by eliminating the manufacturer's liability in the event of
side effects - this being, however, at the cost of the consumer.
It is often accepted, with an astonishing lack of criticism,
that it is vital for a surgeon to learn and practise on living
animals, since he cannot gain the necessary surgical experience
elsewhere. Attention must therefore be drawn, in this connection,
to the fact that training on animals is not demanded by the
regulations, for either the State medical examination or for
specialised recognition as a surgeon. All that is demanded
is proof that the candidate has carried out the appropriate
operations, on his own responsibility, on HUMANS!
Under the generally recognised training procedures, a surgeon
gains his or her basic knowledge by means of assisting an
experienced surgeon. According to his performance, he is then
involved in surgical work under supervision, until the supervising
surgeon finally decides to allow him or her to carry out operations
of increasing difficulty on the trainee's own responsibility.
Skill in microsurgery is similarly gained, and no practice
on living animals is required in order to adapt existing operating
skills to the different optical conditions of the surgical
microscope. When such practice is carried out, this is because
of insufficient experience having been gained in assisting
the teaching surgeon, and so training time is saved, but this
means that such practice is obviously only a means of serving
personal convenience and is not an indispensable training
necessity! Thousands of surgeons and their teams have become
competent and responsible operators without ever having practised
on a living animal.
One must similarly correct parallel statements made in connection
with transplant surgery: a properly trained surgeon is master
of the operating technique, which in itself presents no difficulties.
The result of the operation only becomes problematical with
regard to the patient's tolerance of the transplanted tissue.
But this question of risk can in no way be solved for humans
by experimenting on animals. The effects, dosages and tolerance
of the substances used to suppress the patient's immune system
(and which need to be administered over a long period) can
also not be determined for human beings through an animal
model.
Triggered by the numerous environmental scandals of recent
years, justification of the "necessity" for animal
experiments is increasingly offered by quoting the consumer's
right to safe products. Although all the environmentally poisonous
substances were "tested" on millions of animals
in the notoriously cruel and useless LD-50 test, and thereby
declared "harmless", the taxpayer now has to payout
billions in order to dispose of toxins which are innocuously
described as "old stock".
However, in order to permit the further sale and use of these
substances, which are considered toxic according to their
concentration, it is simply assumed that there is an "effect-limit"
in the organism which is dependent on the dosage given - a
limit below which it will not have any unhealthy effect -
and that one can calculate a concentration which patients
can safely be expected to accept on a continuing basis. But
all competent scientists are of the contrary opinion - namely,
that no such "effect-limit" exists and that even
the smallest dose of any substance is not without effect on
the biological system.
Despite this artificial structure of supposed tolerability
limits, a so-called non-toxicity concentration has been calculated
for each of the 5000 or so chemical substances encountered
in daily life and the effects of which are known. This has
been named NEL (no-effect level); there is also an alleged
tolerability dosage, described as ADI (acceptable daily intake).
Since they were established, these two data have served as
the basis for judging acceptability as far as health is concerned,
even though a further 80,000 or so chemical substances, whose
effects are NOT known, are in general use (despite lack of
any information as , to what effects combinations of them
have within the body).
Such notions of consumer protection naturally have their consequences.
The toxicologists E L Wynder and G B Gori, of the American
Cancer Institute, announced as early as 1977 that from 80
to 90 per cent of all human cancer cases were triggered by
chemical substances taken in via foodstuffs, medicaments,
toiletry products, clothing, style of living and environmental
influences. These connections were confirmed recently by the
German Research Association.
Anyone would conclude from this that, in order really to protect
the consumer, the production and use of these substances would
at least be dramatically reduced; but exactly the opposite
is the case. Their constant consumption is legalised, on the
basis of misleading animal experiments and an acrobatic method
of calculation (based on vivisection data, mere theories and
undeterminable factors) which seduce the consumer into a false
sense of security. And on top of all this, despite the cancer-forming
and other toxic properties shown in animal experiments, these
substances are allowed to be marketed - as in the cases of
formaldehyde, asbestos, the countless dioxins and perchlorethylenes,
the furanes and propriones, the notorious CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons)
and many other chemical products - on the grounds that THE
RESULTS OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED TO HUMAN
BEINGS! And this is increasingly the manufacturers' own legal
defence!
Already, in the important field of substance tolerability,
the very terms "pesticide", "vermicide",
"fungicide" and "insecticide" indicate
the trend towards misleading the public. For these poisons
do not in any way operate in a selective fashion on the so-called
pests. These substances are, in fact, "biocides",
and thus "poisoners of life", which to a greater
or lesser extent damage every living organism, including that
of the human being, even to the point of death. They are thus
akin to chemical weapons, which make no fine distinction between
large and small living creatures or between friend and foe!
That is the reason why nowadays we suffer from contamination
of drinking water, environmental scandals resulting from unknown
degrees of poisoning; food additives and meat which contain
residues of cancer-forming chemicals; a constant rise in radiation
effects, leading to leukaemia in all age-groups; an ozone
hole which is causing a shocking increase in skin cancers
and incalculable effects on climate, oxygen supply and plant
growth; the disastrous death-rate of forests through pollution;
and mounting instances of poisoning by medicines, with thousands
of gravely damaged patients and patient fatalities, as well
as an ever-growing number of allergic illnesses. All these
substances were "tested" on millions of animals
and thereby declared harmless but today nobody wants to acknowledge
guilt for any of this...
The best-known living medical historian in the USA, Professor
Reines, explains how these contradictory interpretations are
possible and writes in his book: "There are, in fact,
two versions of medical history: an authentic account of developments,
and that presented by the animal experimenters in order to
justify their work!"
Ladies and gentlemen, it is not my purpose to denigrate the
achievements of researchers or to condemn Science but.-.with
the aim of truly protecting consumers and patients - to point
out the misuses which are being perpetrated in their name.
The circumstances and facts I have mentioned are known to
every scientist and politician who looks into any of these
questions - at least, they SHOULD be known to them. Regrettably,
however, the decisions regarding our way of living and our
quality of life are not reached according to objective scientific
criteria but according to so-called "practical priorities"
- namely, party strategy, election tactics and economic interests
- and. in any case, animal experiments only serve as a cover-up
for these decisions.
Medical research chose the animal experimentation path some
150 years ago, when it adopted Claude Bernard and the case
he stated, namely:
"WHY THINK, WHEN ONE CAN EXPERIMENT?"
For the sake of both animals and humans, it is high time to
replace this concept of medicine and morality, based on animal
experimentation and lack of thinking, by adopting a thinking
medicine and renouncing animal experimentation.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Return to top
Back to list of speeches
|