USDA subverts Animal Welfare Act in whistleblower protection case
Ron Wood's crack-smoking experiments. A case study of waste, fraud and animal abuse
"Scientific Welfare" needs reform. Wasteful, irrelevant and cruel research underwritten by U.S. tax dollars
Retaliation Case of
Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.
Top Ten Lies of the Department of Agriculture
In the matter of animal welfare whistleblower - Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.
REPORT 6"If I, an internationally recognized scientist and consultant to heads of state and national academies, couldnot secure protection under federal law, how can U.S. citizens believe thatanyone, let alone younger, lesser-known scientists, dare to oppose scientificmisconduct, animal abuse and the misdeeds of corrupt administrations?"- Jan Moor-Jankowski, M.D.
The History of Medical Progress written by Dr. Ray Greek, Director of the Medical Research Modernization Committee
ACTION is part of Agency's long-standing pattern of failure to uphold the law.
|The History of Medical Progress|
written by Dr. Ray Greek, Director of the Medical Research Modernization Committee
Introduction | Surgical Advances | Medication Testing in Animals | Curing and Preventing Cancer |Do Animals Feel Pain? | AIDS Research with Animals
Heart Disease | Cardiovascular Disease | Childhood Diseases | Birth Defects
Curing and Preventing Cancer
Experts state that between 60% and 90% of all cancer can be prevented! Whyare we spending so much money on animal research and so little on prevention.Didn't Benjamin Franklin say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a poundof cure"? What is the track record on animal research and cancer? Wehave spent billions and billions of dollars on animal research for cancer.What have we received for our money?
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud,and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their dutiesto the people who support them." Linus Pauling, Ph.D., two time NobelPrize winner, in Outrage, Oct/Nov 1986
Cancer research on animals has been unproductive because of the differencesbetween humans and animals. The cancers which grow in animals are differentfrom the cancers which afflict humans. And, the physiology of humans isdifferent from the physiology of animals. Animals are not just funny lookingpeople.
One premise of testing new anti-cancer medications, and testing chemicalsto see if they cause cancer on animals is the fallacious assumption thatthe animal is similar to humans in terms of physiology and pharmacologicalresponses. Consider the following: Of 20 compounds known not to cause cancerin humans, 19 did cause cancer in animals. On the other hand of 19 compoundsknown to cause cancer in humans only 7 caused cancer in mice and rats.
Indeed one cancer researcher has stated that
"...the lifetime feeding study in mice and rats appears to have lessthan a 50% probability of finding known human carcinogens... we would havebeen better off to toss a coin."
Artificially induced tumors differ from naturally occurring human tumors.One scientist has stated in a leading cancer journal,
"It is in fact hard to find a single, common solid neoplasm [cancer]where management and expectation of cure has been markedly affected by animalresearch. Most human cancers differ from the artificially produced animalmodel...."
Dr. Sabin, developer of the polio vaccine, stated:
"The cancer research bodies cause pain and suffering to hundreds ofthousands of animal every year by inducing in the animals, by chemical orby irradiation, large cancerous growths in their bodies and in their limbsGivingcancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understandthe disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
According to Dr. J.C. Bailar III, the chief administrator of the War onCancer during the Nixon administration, "Age-adjusted mortality rates(from cancer) have shown a slow and steady increase over several decadesand there is no evidence of a recent downward trend."
One illustration of the futility of animal research for curing cancer isthat between 1970 and 1985 over half a million compounds were tested foranti-cancer properties on animals. Only twenty-four proved to have any anti-canceractivity. Of the twenty-four, twelve went on to have a substantial rolein chemotherapy. All twelve of these were analogues or chemical variationsof known chemotherapeutic agents. In other words, the fact that these chemicalscould be used to fight cancer had already been predicted by their chemicalstructure. Nothing new was learned from the 15 years of study and billionsof dollars.
Dr. Irwin Bross in testimony in 1981 before the US Congress stated,
"the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of humancancer is widely heralded as a triumph due to the use of animal modelsThereis little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claimsIndeed,while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advancesin the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advancein either the prevention or treatment of human cancer."
The American Cancer Society's' former president, Marvin Pollard has stated
"We have relied too heavily on animal testing, and we believe it toostrongly. Now, I think we are commencing to realize that what goes on inan animal may not necessarily be applicable to humans."
The Linus Pauling Institute has been using them since at least 1985. JohnLeavitt of the Institute stated, "The Pauling Institute decided toexplore the mechanism of carcinogenesis with an emphasis on human cellsrather than on the cells of animals. Only recently have we begun to realizethe significance of this intuitive premise that human cancer, while fundamentallythe same as rodent cancer, may have critical mechanistic differences whichmay in turn require different, uniquely human approaches to cancer eradication."
The real progress in cancer research has come through studying populationsof people and linking lifestyle to disease. This branch of science is calledepidemiology. Through population studies the link between smoking and lungcancer was confirmed. Animal experiments were notorious for failing to demonstratethis link. The tobacco industry used this to their advantage for years claimingthat smoking did not cause lung cancer. One researcher stated in a leadingmedical journal in 1957 that, "The failure of many investigatorstoinduce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during fiftyyears of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lungcancer theory."
This statement was made despite the fact that 27 studies on humans had beendone establishing the link between smoking and cancer. Smoking related canceris still difficult to reproduce in lab animals.
In 1988 writing in the book Perspectives in Basic and Applied ToxicologyDr. Utidjian stated, "Surely not even the most zealous toxicologistwould deny that epidemiology, and epidemiology alone, has indicted and incriminatedthe cigarette as a potent carcinogenic agent, or would claim that experimentalanimal toxicology could ever have done the job with the same definition."
Epidemiology has linked a high fat diet (the typical American diet) withmany cancers. In vitro research and epidemiology have led to the knowledgeto prevent and the few cures available for cancer. Educating the publicabout the risk factors including fat, smoking and alcohol would do far moreto decrease cancer deaths than animal research, which so far has done nothingbut consume our resources.