In the links beneath, you can view a presentation with photos and music, that shows how cruel people (especially enterprises, consumers, pet owners...) can be toward animals. Living beings that also have rights, as for example the right to live freely, without any type of torture.
Some of the photos are very shocking, but can show how cruel people can be, especially when it involves the need for business in general, such as meat or other type of animal food for supermarkets, testing of thousands of different products, and as well the need of fur, for furcoats for example.

VIDEOS:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=free_me
www.pelosanimais.com/aa/free_me.php

PHOTOS:
www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan1_en.htm
www.animalrightsmedia.com

Vivisection literally means the 'cutting up' of living animals, but has now become more generally used as the term for all experiments on living animals (in vivo) as many animal experiments, such as toxicity tests, will not involve surgical procedures. Non-animal research techniques (in vitro) include such things as cell cultures, computer modelling or artificial systems. Animal experiments cause immense pain and suffering, with over 60% of all procedures in the UK performed without any anaesthetic whatsoever. The animals involved will either die as a result of the experiment or be deliberately killed afterwards, often for post mortem examination.In the laboratory an animal may be poisoned; deprived of food, water or sleep; applied with skin and eye irritants; subjected to psychological stress; deliberately infected with disease; brain damaged; paralysed; surgically mutilated; irradiated; burned; gassed; force fed and electrocuted. The list reads like a catalogue of torture methods.

Do the animals in laboratories suffer?

By its very nature, vivisection is virtually inseparable from suffering or death. This is partly to do with the experimenter's desire for a disposable species that can be manipulated as required and then killed when convenient. It also arises from the manner in which many tests are performed. In the field of toxicology, which accounts for much of animal experimentation, dose levels are often chosen to induce harmful effects.

For instance, in prolonged safety tests with new drugs, the highest dose levels are chosen to produce adverse effects. In 'lethal toxicity tests' the animals are deliberately poisoned to death to measure toxicity.
Another area in which animals are deliberately harmed is the study of illness and injury. Here the condition is artificially induced to produce an 'animal model'. In cancer research, for instance, the UK's leading charities acknowledge that 'animals with local or disseminated tumours are likely to experience pain and/or distress [Source: UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia (UKCCCR, July,1988)].

At London's National Institute for Medical Research, videotaped evidence revealed how inadequate anaesthesia caused a rabbit to struggle in pain. And with wild-caught monkeys, the number who die during capture and transportation far exceeds the total who survive the journey to the laboratory. In most experiments, animals who are not killed by the procedure are killed at the end of it.

Many of the techniques and devices used by animal researchers are more suited to a torture chamber than a twenty-first century laboratory. For instance, pain responses during drug research are often measured by putting animals onto hot plates, by dipping their tails into hot water and by the 'mouse writhing test', in which acetic acid is injected into the animal's stomach. Stress is induced by forcing animals to swim in a tank of water, and to produce the desired response in behavioural experiments, researchers use food deprivation or drugs.

Electric shocks, flashing lights, loud noises and chemicals are used to produce epileptic fits in animals, whilst formalin is used to induce a 'model' of persistent pain. In laboratory rats, glycerol is employed to produce kidney failure and carbon tetrachloride to induce liver cirrhosis. In toxicity tests, animals are poisoned to death or forced to breathe suspect fumes in specially designed inhalation chambers. Their eyes are stitched closed or surgically removed during vision experiments. They are addicted to drugs, and potential irritants are applied to their skin or eyes. And so on...

How many animals are used?

In 1998 in the UK a staggering 2,659,662 experiments were conducted on 2,593,587 animals. Since 1990 the number of experiments on genetically manipulated animals in Britain has risen by 827%, making this the most rapidly expanding area of animal experimentation in the UK.

It is estimated that over 100 million animals suffer every year in laboratory experiments world-wide. However, as most countries provide only incomplete statistics it is impossible to know the exact number. Even in the UK, where annual figures are published by the Home Office, the statistics on the total number of animals used is misleading. Animals killed purely for their blood, tissue and organs; those bred for research but subsequently killed as 'surplus' and even military experiments performed by the Ministry of Defence are currently excluded from the statistics.

Questions raised in the British Houses of Parliament have revealed that as many as 80% of mice and 85% of rats bred for vivisection may be killed without being used, and the BUAV's investigation at breeders Harlan UK revealed that healthy dogs were regularly killed to provide blood products or as 'surplus stock'. The BUAV believes that if these animals were added to the annual statistics, the real figure for the total number of animals involved in research in the UK would increase by many millions.

What species are used for experiments?

A wide variety of animal species are used for vivisection around the world. Rats and mice are used in 80% of laboratory experiments in the UK, mainly because they are small and cheap. They occupy less space in a laboratory than larger animals and can produce 50 - 100 babies a year. These rodents are so cheap and readily available that they are virtually viewed as disposable research 'tools' by scientists. In fact, researchers in the United States do not even bother to record how many rats, mice and birds they kill each year; these creatures make up to 80% of all animals used and yet they are considered so insignificant, their use does not even appear in official statistics.
Albino rabbits are commonly used for eye and skin tests because they are easy to handle and they have a very limited ability to 'cry away' substances from their eyes during experiments. To our shame the UK is Europe's largest user of dogs and primates for experimentation. The most common breed of laboratory dog is the beagle, chosen primarily because they are good-natured and a manageable size for testing procedures. The use of Great Apes (gorilla, chimpanzee and orang-utan) has been banned in the UK, but primates such as baboons and macaques continue to be used in their thousands. Other animals commonly used for research include guinea pigs, dogs, cats, birds, fish, pigs, horses, sheep, hamsters and primates, but many other species are used as well.

Where do laboratory animals come from?

Although some research establishments have their own breeding facilities, the majority of all research animals in the UK are 'purpose bred' by commercial companies that specialise in supplying animals for vivisection. The research industry often tries to defend its treatment of animals by emphasising that they are 'purpose bred' as if this means they are somehow different from other animals.
The breeders' catalogues talk about the animals they sell as 'products', boasting fast delivery and easy dispatch of orders, as though these living, breathing animals are no more than laboratory equipment. The truth of course is that a laboratory animal has exactly the same capacity to suffer physically and psychologically as a pet animal.
Many primates used in vivisection around the world, such as macaques and baboons, are trapped in the wild or captive bred in terrible conditions in countries such as Mauritius, Barbados, Indonesia, the Philippines and China. They are then transported thousands of miles to be sold to laboratories in Europe, the United States and the rest of the world. These primates can endure such terrible conditions and stress on their long journeys that many do not reach their destination alive.
A BUAV investigation in 1992 revealed that as many as 80% of wild-caught monkeys never reached the laboratory, whether being killed as 'unsuitable' or dying from disease, infection and stress as a result of capture and transportation. The international trade in primates for research only serves to exacerbate the already huge threat to these often increasingly rare species from habitat destruction and the bushmeat trade.

Types of experiments

Animals are used in many different types of experiments to test a wide variety of products. Researchers around the world use animals during the development and manufacture of almost anything from household products, cosmetics and toiletries and food additives to pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, agrochemicals, pet foods, medical devices and tobacco and alcohol products. Military experiments subject animals to the effects of poisonous gas, decompression sickness, blast wounds, burns and radiation as they assess new and existing weapons and surgical techniques 'in the field'.
In fact, almost all of the products used and consumed by humans every day around the world, even water, will have been tested on animals at some point in time. Take a look around your home - the cosmetics and toiletries you apply to your body; the household cleaning products in your kitchen; the toothpaste in your bathroom; the colourings and additives in the food in your fridge; the tablets in your medicine cabinet; the paint on your walls; the varnish on your furniture; the petrol in your car; the weed killer in your garden shed; even the dyes in the clothes you are wearing - all of these and more will have been tested on animals.
Animal experiments fall under 4 main categories:

• 1. Product development
  Animals are used in the development of new products and ingredients such as drugs, pesticides, household cleaners and paint.
  
  
• 2. Safety testing
  Animals are widely used in toxicity studies where they are effectively poisoned to test the 'safety' of new products and ingredients such as shampoos, washing powders, medicines, food additives and industrial chemicals.
  
  
• 3. Medical research
  Scientists use animals as 'models' for human diseases by artificially inducing the symptoms of human illnesses such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Animals are also used to test new medical devices and surgical techniques. More recently, genetically engineered animals are being bred and used as potential organ donors for humans, a process known as xenotransplantation.
  
  
• 4. Basic research
  Scientists carry out experiments on animals in an attempt to find out new facts and learn more about how the body works. Such research is largely curiosity driven, since its results have no direct use or application.

Vivisection is a flawed science

'All species, all varieties of animals and even individuals of the same species differ from one another. No experimentation carried out on one species can be extrapolated to any other. The belief that such extrapolation could be legitimate is the main reason for the failures, and sometimes for the catastrophes, that modern medicine inflicts on us, especially where drugs are concerned'. (Professor Pietro Croce, Honorary President of Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine)

The fact is that animal experiments tell us about animals, not about people. The results of animal studies can never guarantee the safety or efficacy of human medicines or other products because of the fundamental differences between the species. Different species can have completely contradictory responses to a range of substances; on average there is only a 5-25% correlation between harmful drug effects in humans and the results of animal experiments.

For example, Aspirin is used as a relatively safe and effective painkiller for humans but can be fatal to cats; Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic in humans and yet it can kill both cats and guinea pigs; Arsenic is very dangerous for humans but does not present the same level of threat to rats, mice or sheep; insulin, a drug used safely by people with diabetes, can produce terrible deformities in mice, rabbits and chickens. Even something as mundane as chocolate, which is consumed in large quantities by humans worldwide, can be extremely toxic in dogs.

The danger of relying on animal studies is illustrated by the long list of animal tested drugs that are withdrawn from sale or restricted in their use as a result of unexpected side effects in human patients. In April 2000 a study published by US watchdog group Public Citizen reported that an estimated 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse drug reactions.

• Case Study 1
  In 1993, Boots' heart drug Manoplax was withdrawn less than a year after its launch following large scale human trials which suggested a link to increased rates of death and hospital admissions in patients. Manoplax had been extensively animal tested in studies using dogs, cats and other animals. Despite this however, it was only following clinical trials with human patients that the dangers of this drug became apparent.
  
  
• Case Study 2
  Opren was promoted as a new wonder drug with a unique potential to treat arthritis and prevent the condition deteriorating. Indeed it did, but only in laboratory rats. In 1982 Opren was withdrawn from sale in Britain after 3,500 reports of side effects, including 61 deaths. Long-term studies with rhesus monkeys had failed to provide any evidence that the drug might cause liver damage, the main cause of death in human patients. Other animal studies commissioned by the manufacturers had also failed to suggest that Opren might cause the photosensitive skin reactions suffered by many of the human victims of this drug.
  
  
• Case Study 3
  In the case of ICI's heart drug Eraldin, patients suffered serious side effects including damage to the eyes. Some went blind and at least 23 others died. Animal experiments provided no warning of this tragic disaster and even after human patients were blinded by Eraldin, these side effects could not be reproduced in laboratory animals.
• Case Study 4
  In June 1992, Teflox was withdrawn from sale in the UK after it had been given to 20,000 patients in only 8 months. The US manufacturer Abbott Laboratories withdrew the antibiotic after tests showed it could cause liver and kidney problems, and a life-threatening shock reaction.
  
  
• Case Study 5
  Produced by Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra, Zimeldine was withdrawn worldwide in 1983, one year after its launch. In the UK there were over 300 reports of side effects, many of them serious, and 7 deaths. This drug was tested on rats, mice and dogs - none of the tests predicted such serious side effects.
  
  
• Case Study 6
  In 1999 Trovan, a fluoroquinolene antibiotic made by Pfizer, was suspended in Europe and its use severely restricted in the US after its association with liver damage, resulting in 6 deaths.
  
  
• Case Study 7
  In 1999 the antibiotic Raxar made by Glaxo Wellcome was withdrawn world-wide because of adverse cardiovascular problems, including 7 deaths in which the product could not be excluded as a cause.
  
  
• Case Study 8
  In 1999 it was reported in The Lancet that Novartis's antipsychotic drug Clozapine may be associated with potentially fatal heart conditions in healthy young adults with schizophrenia. The drug has been widely available for over 10 years but the sudden death of 2 patients prompted a further study. Looking at previous records revealed a number of other deaths of patients shortly after starting the therapy.

Other high profile drug withdrawals include: Benoxaprofen in 1982; Domperidone in 1986; Nomifensine in 1986; Terodiline in 1991; Mumps Vaccine in 1992.

Increasingly, people are coming to realise that animal based research is, at best, 'flip a coin' science that cannot accurately predict human responses and is failing to find cures for human diseases. Anti-vivisectionists are not anti-human in their defence of animals. Nor are they opposed to medical progress. The BUAV wants to see real advancement in the treatment of painful and debilitating human diseases, but we believe that the route to these advances depends on developing and using research techniques that do not involve animals.

In fact, by relying on animal based data we are actually holding back the potential of medical science. Our experiments should be based on cutting-edge, biologically relevant non-animal techniques of the 21st Century, and not on the antiquated assumption that test results from one species can be safely applied to another.

Ending animal experiments would not harm human health, rather it would free up valuable resources that could be used to develop non-animal research techniques. Government, regulatory bodies and industry must work together to rethink our scientific endeavour, and to invest in retraining scientists and re-equipping laboratories to use the high-tech in vitro research techniques that will enable us to develop life-saving drugs and safe consumer products for the future - progress with compassion and health with humanity.

Are you against all animal experiments?

There is no ethical objection to experiments designed to help the animal or animals involved, such as untried veterinary techniques used to save the life of the animal in question. Studies which observe the behavior of animals in their natural habitat, such as Dr. Jane Goodall's revolutionary work with chimpanzees, are equally acceptable. All other types of experimentation and testing simply cannot be ethically justified.
While this ethical position stands on its own, there are serious scientific and health issues involved as well. Vivisection has led us down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting attention and funds from more applicable scientific techniques. The practice of animal experimentation and testing continues, not because it has been shown to be an accurate and reliable means of research (which it has not), but rather, because of tradition, peer pressure, and enormous promotion from those with strong vested interests.

Isn't it true that every major medical advance in the last century was a result of animal experimentation?

No. Since the inception of the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1901, two thirds of the prizes have been awarded to scientists using various 'alternative' technologies, not animal experiments. In fact, results derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the rise in life expectancy can be attributed mainly to changes in lifestyle, environmental factors, and improvements in sanitation.
It is true that mortality rates have dropped considerably during this century. However, 92% of this decline occurred prior to the introduction of vaccines and treatments derived through vivisection. Medical historians, McKinley and McKinley of Boston University, report that vaccines and drugs introduced to fight infectious diseases account for only 3.5% of the dramatic decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1973.
While vivisection has received more attention and funding, clinical and epidemiological (studying the natural course of disease within human populations) studies have had a much more profound impact on human health. For example, the connection between cholesterol and heart disease was first established through epidemiology. Analyses of human populations have proven to be much better indicators of the factors contributing to cancer than have animal experiments. In fact, clinical and epidemiological evidence linking smoking to lung cancer was established long before warnings of the dangers of smoking were released to the general public. Because animal experimentation failed to reach the same conclusion, warning labels on cigarettes were delayed for years. During that time hundreds of thousands of people died from lung cancer because the results of animal experimentation were considered more valid than studies of human patients.

Wasn't the development of the polio vaccine dependent on the use of monkeys?

Although those who promote vivisection often point to the polio vaccine to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated. The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the Nobel prize for this discovery. Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that monkey cells harbor dozens of viruses, some of which have been shown to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human tissue, if not more so.
Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
'Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models [of polio] in monkeys'.
Just because some scientists used monkeys doesn't mean they had to or that monkeys were a good choice. Indeed, by the experimenter's admission, it was an impediment.

Are there any real alternatives to the use of whole animals in research and testing?

Animal-based research is the science of the past. There are a number of alternatives available to modern researchers which are less expensive, more reliable and ethically sound. Studies performed in the test-tube (in vitro) have many advantages over animal experiments. They provide results rapidly; experimental parameters are easily controlled; and their focus on the cellular and molecular levels of the life process provides more useful information about how chemicals and drugs work or cause damage.

Clinical and epidemiological studies are a vast source of data. They have provided us with more useful information about the nature of disease in our world than any other source. Modern computer technology has vastly improved our ability to analyze the huge volume of incredibly complex data available to us by studying the course of disease throughout the world. Cell and tissue cultures, CAT, PET, and MRI scans, quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis in drug design, and chemical toxicity assays are some of the modern approaches to research available to scientists today. We must ask ourselves why we rely on the science of yesterday.

Would you rather see your child die than support experiments on animals?

Fortunately, no one will ever have to make this decision. Since vivisection often offers such misleading predictions, the real choice is not between animals and children, but between good and bad science. Vivisection has undoubtedly cost many children their lives. It produces inaccurate and dangerous results and wastes enormous amounts of precious time and resources on an archaic methodology while promising new techniques are ignored.

Consider the enormous wastefulness of maternal deprivation studies, in which monkeys are taken from their mothers and systematically abused in a number of ways. The conclusion from these studies, that abuse and neglect lead to psychological damage and social maladjustment, is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. It certainly does not justify the suffering of countless animals or the millions of dollars which have been spent to come to this foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, programs to help abused and neglected children are deprived of the funding which could make a very significant impact on these children's lives.

If we are to truly help our children, we must take a broad look at the factors contributing to their suffering and the means we may employ to prevent it. We must not be influenced by those with financial interests in animal research and allow them to convince us that their outdated, inaccurate methods will save the lives of our children.

Would you rather scientists test new drugs on people?

They already do. When a newly released drug hits the market, regardless of how many animal tests have been done, those individuals who first use it are 'human guinea pigs'. Animal tests are not a good indicator of what will occur in humans. The General Accounting Office reviewed the drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985. Of these, 52% were found to be more dangerous than pre-market animal studies had indicated, with adverse side effects including permanent disability and death.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that different animals vary in their response to drugs. The drug Fialuridine, designed to treat hepatitis, was shown to be safe in tests with dogs, woodchucks, monkeys and other animals, but a number of fatalities resulted from pre-market clinical screening with humans. Penicillin, the archetypal 'miracle drug', is fatal to guinea pigs, but has saved countless human lives. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol, and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans that they were removed from the market, though animal experiments had predicted all of them to be safe. The list goes on and on.

The pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, sought to determine the accuracy of lifetime rodent tests (exposing rodents to low levels of potentially hazardous substances over the course of years) for carcinogenicity. Using animals to test various chemicals already known to cause cancer in humans, they obtained the correct result in less than half of the cases. They would have been better off tossing a coin....

Ironically, many patients have been denied access to experimental drugs because they have not yet been tested on animals. Numerous AIDS patients have had to sue the government to try new drugs. Famous physician Henry Heimlich had to go to China to conduct human clinical trials for a potential therapy for AIDS. People with AIDS don't have the luxury to wait for approval through the enormously time consuming animal-testing procedures required by the FDA.

We must seek a greater understanding of the nature of the mechanisms of drugs on a cellular and molecular level if we are to have insights into the probable results. Through the increased use of modern methodologies such as in vitro assays, tissue cultures, computer modeling, and extensive molecular biological analysis, we can come to a better understanding of what effect various drugs will have on humans. Then we can all cease to be 'guinea pigs'.

Aren't animals in laboratories protected by laws?

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966 and subsequently amended in 1970, 1976 and 1985. It sets standards for the housing, handling, feeding and transportation of experimental animals [in America], but places no limitations whatsoever on the actual experimental conditions and procedures which may be utilized. The following provision allows vivisectors to do as they please: 'Nothing in these rules, regulations, or standards shall affect or interfere with the design, outline, or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility'.

In 1985, Congress passed an amendment which merely required dogs to be exercised and primates provided with an environment conducive to their psychological well-being. Pressure from vivisectors forced the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue ineffective regulations which did not fulfill the intent of the law. Compliance is now at the discretion of the institution conducting the research.

The USDA, which is charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act in America, has excluded mice, rats, birds, and farm animals (who comprise 85-90% of all animals in research and testing) from even minimal protection. Although a federal judge found this exclusion to be illegal, there is still no clear indication when new USDA regulations will be enacted.

The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), under the direction of the USDA, is supposed to inspect animal dealers and research facilities, and enforce the AWA. In 1992 and 1995, APHIS was itself inspected by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which issued scathing reports documenting APHIS' inability to accomplish this task. Two particularly relevent passages include: '...APHIS cannot ensure humane care and treatment at all facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act', and 'APHIS does not have the authority, under current legislation, to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act'.

Since research grants are so scarce, isn't the research that is funded worthwhile?

Animal research has become the established scientific standard. It captures headlines and receives big grants, unlike preventive medicine. It is easy for animal researchers to design experiments which will produce large amounts of data. The fact that this data has no real relevance is not an issue.
Walter Stewart, a principal investigator from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that over 25% of all published research projects are 'outright fraud'. The scientific industry often has more to do with politics and economics than it does with science. Here are some examples of recent findings from research being done with our tax-money:

• * Paralyzed, decerebrated cats can be induced to vomit through neural stimulation or emetic drugs. The relationship to natural human nausea is unestablished. (Rockefeller University, NY Cost: $1,654,748)
• * Old rhesus monkeys do not learn as quickly or remember as well as young monkeys. (Boston University & Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, TX Cost: $1,225,000)
• * Crack cocaine is addictive and can impair complex behavior. (New York University Medical Center, NY Cost: $2,500,000)
  This is a clear indication that scientific merit is not a prerequisite for funding.

If animal experiments are so unscientific and are such a waste of money, why do they continue?

Vivisection has become firmly entrenched in the mindset of the scientific community in the western world. It is not difficult for vivisectors to produce results, since the system is so well established. Variables are easily changed to produce volumes of data. In the publish-or-perish world of science, vivisection offers limitless opportunities for publication. As the industry of science today is quantitative, not qualitative, the production of large amounts of data is often more important than its relevance.

There is always resistance to new ideas which challenge the existing mindset of any community, and this is especially true in science. Consider the reluctance to accept the theories of Copernicus that the Earth circled around the sun, or Galileo's demonstration that objects do not fall to the Earth at speeds proportionate to their masses. We accept these things today as common knowledge, even common sense, but they were rejected as the rantings of fools when first proposed. Vivisection continues because tradition and peer pressure within the scientific community will not allow its carefully constructed intellectual walls to be torn down.

Powerful special interest groups also work to maintain the status quo of vivisection. Consider the so-called 'education foundation', Americans for Medical Progress. This organization actively attacks anti-vivisection arguments and distributes pro-vivisection propaganda. This group has been publicly exposed by consumer 'watch-dog' organizations as a front group for the animal experimentation industry.

Don't cosmetics, household products, and other chemicals have to be tested on animals so humans don't suffer the consequences?

Thousands of new drugs, chemicals, and other household products are introduced on the market each year. Most of these, from shampoos to weed killers, are tested on animals. Many of these tests are conducted without anesthesia, to minimize variable factors, but seem to ignore an even more significant variable, species differences. Consider the following results of LD-50 tests (which determine the dosage required to kill 50% of the test animals) of dioxin on various animals:

• * Female rat - 45 microgram/kilogram
• * Male rat - 22 microgram/kilogram
• * Guinea pig - 1 microgram/kilogram
• * Hamster - 5000 microgram/kilogram

This vast difference in toxicity among such closely related animals clearly shows how preposterous it is to extrapolate this sort of data to human beings.

The infamous Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to test cosmetics and household products. The test substance is placed in one eye of an albino rabbit and the other is left unexposed for comparison. The test proceeds for several days and is often agonizingly painful. Rabbits are used because they are inexpensive, easy to handle, and have large eyes for evaluating results. The rabbit eye is, however, a poor model for the human eye because of major differences including the thickness, tissue structure, tearing mechanisms, and biochemistry of the rabbit cornea.

The Draize test has been widely criticized on scientific grounds because it produces unreliable results that often bear little relation to human responses. However, many corporations still use this test, because it has traditionally absolved them of liability in lawsuits against them.

Only when animal organizations began to focus public attention on toxicity and irritancy tests did several of the major cosmetic and household product companies begin the serious search for non-animal methods to fulfill their scientific and corporate objectives. The dramatic change in public attitudes about the use of animals in product testing has brought momentum to the discipline of non-animal based research and this has demonstrated the value of consumer pressure for ending the exploitation of animals.

Weren't animals necessary for the organ transplants of today's modern medicine, and don't we need to use animals to meet the shortage of human organs?

The human immune system will violently reject implanted animal organs. Since the tissue comes from an entirely different species, the rejection is much more severe than any human organ transplant would evoke. Scientists are now trying to produce animals with human DNA, to reduce this immune reaction. The amount of money already spent to overcome these problems is enormous, and yet there has been virtually no investment in any public education campaigns to encourage people to take care of their health in the first place, or to encourage human organ donation.

This methodology is being pursued with great vigor, despite the fact that many scientists have warned of the dangers of epidemic disease which could result from this 'xenotransplantation'. Viruses present in animal tissue, which may be harmless in that species, could turn out to be contagious and deadly to human beings. This enormous risk is absolutely unwarranted.
Thus far, of several dozen human recipients of animal organs, not one has lived over one year.

The ethical, scientific, and public policy issues surrounding organ transplantation are often widely misunderstood. The research community and the general public often regard organ transplantation as a medical milestone, but the overall impact on human life expectancy as a result of organ transplants is virtually nil. Only a very small percentage of people in the world stand to benefit from an organ transplant. On the other hand, the majority of heart, liver, and kidney disease (the organs most often transplanted) can be prevented through lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, the investment of money into public education to reinforce and encourage these lifestyle choices is a minute fraction of the amount spent on animal research.

Preventive medicine and lifestyle choices are undoubtedly the most sensible and effective strategies for addressing the diseases and disorders which are treated by organ transplants. However, when transplantation is a viable option, it is clear that human organs are far superior to animal organs. Scientists are now attempting to overcome enormous scientific problems in order to transplant animal organs into humans.

Isn't it necessary to use animals in the training of medical students?

As a matter of fact, many medical schools in the U.S. do not use animals in the training of medical students. They include:

* New York University, New York, NY
* Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
* University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
* University of Washington, Seattle, WA
* SUNY-Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY
* Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA
* Howard University, Washington, DC
* University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD

Actually, most of the medical schools which do use animals allow students the option of foregoing the animal labs. This is because they clearly acknowledge that such labs are not necessary for the training of doctors. The sole exception is the military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
Dogs are the most commonly used animals at medical schools which haven't implemented alternatives. The internal organs of a dog differ in shape from those of humans. The tissues, skin, internal organs and other parts of a dog differ in texture and elasticity from those of humans. While basic surgical skills could be learned from animals, it is certainly not necessary.

What is necessary, for teaching anything but basic, rudimentary techniques, is that the students have experience observing and assisting with human surgery. For example, first-year students at Harvard Medical School observed the effects of cardioactive and anesthetic drugs during heart surgery in the hospital operating room. This method proved to be a valuable teaching and learning experience. As an alternative option, if medical schools insist on training their students with animals, we suggest that they have the students assist veterinarians with necessary surgery.

Scientific facts can be taught to medical students by use of films, models, diagrams, cadavers and other demonstrative techniques. Medical schools which allow their students to 'practice' on live, healthy animals may be teaching future physicians to be callous and devoid of compassion. Doctors are considered to be humanitarian individuals, but vivisection during the training process can desensitize them to the pain they cause and teach them to put ethics aside.

A survey conducted at the University of Colorado Medical School, the last civilian medical school to finally forego a requirement for live animal labs, revealed that 78% of the medical students surveyed (which represented 81% of the class) felt that students should have the right not to participate in these unnecessary labs. The survey was conducted shortly before the University finally reversed its policy and allowed students the choice to not participate in these labs.

By what methods should future surgeons be trained? Students should first learn about anatomy by practicing with cadavers, and then work directly with accomplished surgeons, observing and assisting with operations. Finally, after they have assisted with many types of surgical procedures, they will be amply prepared to perform surgery themselves. This is the surgical training procedure in Great Britain, where practice surgery on animals is illegal. It is unquestioned that British surgeons are among the world's finest.

There is no reason for medical schools to use animals for the purpose of experimentation or demonstration. Acceptable alternatives are available and should be implemented.

Animals that have been procured from pounds and shelters are going to die anyway. Why not put them to use in laboratories?

Animals in shelters are often euthanized if suitable homes cannot be found. The process of euthanasia is supposed to be painless. If these animals become tools for research, they are often subjected to excruciatingly painful experiments. A quick and painless death is certainly more humane than a lifetime of torture in a laboratory. Even when the animals are destined for a one-time experiment from which they will not awake, the trauma of transport, caging, and a laboratory setting is the last thing these neglected and abused animals deserve.

Consider also that there are two basic groups of animals in shelters: (1)Those who are old, sick, injured, aggressive, etc, who are not likely to be adopted, and are destined for euthanization, and (2)healthy and friendly animals who have a chance of being adopted. Animal researchers want the animals from the second group, thus they are taking animals who may be adopted and are directly interfering with the humane function of the shelters.

Animal experimenters are able to obtain large numbers of animals at low cost from pounds and shelters. If this practice is discontinued, it will certainly decrease the number of redundant, unnecessary animal experiments which are performed. Rather than attempting to rationalize the suffering and torture of animals in laboratories with the statement that 'they are going to die anyway', we should address the problem of companion animal over-population. Low-cost spay/neuter programs would greatly reduce the number of animals in shelters in the first place.

CREDITS/SOURCES:
http://www.aavs.org/

We need to fight against an enterprise in the UK (and many others in the world) that is doing major Tests on Animals (AKA as torture and cruelty), the name of the enterprise is HLS - Huntingdon Life Sciences. It is estimated that this enterprise kills an average of 500 animals per day, animals of all types. Of course you can imagine how many thousands are tortured every day in the most horrible ways. This enterprise also does VIVISECTION ( www.buav.org ) which is using cirurgical instruments on LIVE animals... it's the equivilent of a human having a fully cirurgy without any type of anestesy. So you can have a glance of how much the animals suffer, it probably the most brutal way of dying. No one that has a minimum of indignation and sensitivity against this barbarity of the modern days should stay still. What we show here is nothing compared to all the suffering the animals are going trought.
We need to pressure this enterprise to stop the tests.

Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is Europe’s largest contract animal testing laboratory. They have about 70,000 animals on site, including rabbits, cats, hamsters, dogs, guinea-pigs, birds and monkeys. These animals are destined to suffer and die in cruel, useless experiments. HLS will test anything for anybody. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colourings and additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms. HLS have been infiltrated and exposed a number of times in recent years. Each time horrific evidence of animal abuse and staff incompetence has been uncovered, including workers punching beagle puppies in the face. On the site http://www.shac.net you will find information on HLS, who they are, who their supporters are and most importantly how you can take action to have this disgrace of a company closed down.

HLS would have you beleive that the sole purpose for their existence is to perform life saving medical research. Nothing could be further from the truth. All you have to do is look at the list of known HLS clients and it becomes apparent that Huntingdon is nothing more than a testing facility for food colourings, industrial chemicals, pesticides and pharmaceutical products. The companies listed below pay HLS to conduct a wide range of vile tests on animals so that they can get their products onto the market as quickly as possible. Click on the names to find out more about the companies and their relationships with HLS. Let's not forget that these companies are all fully aware of Huntingdon's history of animal abuse, fraud and misconduct:

HELP STOP TORTURE ON ANIMALS:
http://www.shac.net

INFORMATION ON VIVISECTION:

http://www.buav.org/zerooption/index.html
http://www.novivisezione.org/links_en.htm
http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/index_en.htm

Links to Organizations for the protection of nature:

http://www.peta-online.org/
www.buav.org
http://www.greenpeace.org
http://www.care2.com/
http://www.freethedolphins.org
http://www.thepetitionsite.com
www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk
http://www.animal.org.pt/ (Portuguese)
http://www.pelosanimais.com (Portuguese)
www.quercus.pt (Portuguese)
http://shacpt.no.sapo.pt/ (Portuguese)

http://www.buav.org
http://www.PGInfo.net
http://www.shac.net
http://www.pandgkills.com
http://www.uncaged.org.uk
http://www.peta.org/feat/iams
http://www.pcrm.org

LIST OF ENTERPRISES THAT DO BRUTAL TESTS ON ANIMALS:

Please DO NOT buy their products and contact them to make pressure to stop the cruel tests.