Halting Shoe Zones Funding Of Vivisection
Little Moo Moo | 30.01.2009 09:43 | Animal Liberation
Suggestion.
Pick two random numbers between 1 and 21. Copy and paste the two corresponding quotes from the list below and email it, along with a short polite message, to Shoe Zone at
info@shoezone.net
That way they will get a selection of the evidence that proves that vivisection and cancer research are separate, incompatible subjects.
- VIN
1. In June 1978, Dr Albert Sabin (who was credited with developing a polio vaccine) informed a conference in Naples, Italy, "Laboratory cancers have nothing in common with natural human cancers...Human cancers are greatly different from the artifical tumours caused by experimenters in the laboratories"( Sabin,A. 1978 cited in Croce,P. Vivisection or Science. CIVITAS. 1992[ref]
2. "One must, however, realise that there are vast differences between tumours occuring naturally in humans and those induced under laboratory conditions in rodents"( Hellstrom,KE. Hellstrom,I. FASEB Journal. vol 3. 1989).
3. "Most cancer research is done on mice using a tumour type called a sarcoma, whilst human tumours are of a different type called a carcinoma"( Peto,R. quoted in Tudge,C. World Medicine. vol 15 no 3. 1979). Sarcomas are defined as cancers arising in tissues that make up an organ rather than being restricted to a particular organ and can arise in the fibrous tissue, muscle, fat, bone, cartilage, blood, and lymphatic vessels, whilst carcinomas are defined as cancers arising within the tissue that lines the skin and internal organs of the body( Martin,EA. Concise Medical Dictionary. 4th ed. Oxford Uni Press. 1994).
4. Apart from other important biochemical and morphological differences these cancers do not produce metastases, that is, just that development which in man is the principle cause of the fatal outcome of the disease, and a development which cannot be produced, either by physical or chemical means, even in monkeys...” [Prof Pietro Croce “Vivisection or Science: A choice to make” p46]
5. “There are many differences between the tumors that have been transplanted into nude mice and the ones hat are still in humans. For example: cell cycle parameters, growth rate, metastatic spread, invasive properties, origin of stroma, pharmacokinetics, and the metabolism of the tumor-bearing host are different from the situation in the cancer patient.” [Boven, Epie and Winograd (Eds) ‘The Nude Mouse in Oncology Research’ CRC Press 1991 p92.
Carcinogen screening
6. “The standard carcinogen tests that use rodents are an obsolescent relic of the ignorance of past decades.” Dr P Abelson, Science, 21 Sep 1990, p1357.
7. Drug company Pfizer assessed tests routinely used to verify whether the animal method was effective. They found accuracy rates extremely low (37%) and concluded: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.” [D Salsburg, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1983, vol 3, p63-67]
8. As late as 1993 it was argued that tobacco did not cause cancer, based on animal tests. Animal tests have consistently indicated smoking to be safe. [New York Times Dec 6 1993]
9. An evaluation of using animals to screen for carcinogens examined chemicals classed as dangerous in animals. 79% were not a definite or probably carcinogen in humans. The authors concluded: “...validation studies have found the rodent bioessay to be lacking in human specificity (i.e. the ability to detect human non-carcinogens)… or even human sensitivity (i.e. the ability to detect human carcinogens at all)….” [Prof Jarrard Bailey, ATLA 34, 19-27, 2006]
10. Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [DiCarlo DrugMet Rev, 15; p409-131984.]
11. 95% of compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [ D Salsburg, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1983, vol 3, p63-67]
12. Finding new drugs
13. The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. [Science vol 278, Nov 7 th 1997, p1041]
14. The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40, 000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. From this expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but were useless for humans. A lab handbook concluded “despite 25 years of intensive work and positive results in animals, not a single anti-tumor drug emerged from this work” [JCW Salen ‘Animal Models – Principles and Problems’ in “Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science” Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) 1994, p4]
15. First Cancer drug Actinomycin-D discovered by accident in humans.(Coley, W, 1983, Postgraduate vol 8, p278-276) Later fell into disuse because it was toxic in animals (Sokoloff, B 1952 Cancr, New Approaches, New Hope, Devin Adair Co, New York.)
16.Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."
17. Irwin Bross “While conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the treatment or treatment of human cancer”. [Irwin Bross, former director of Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research in evidence to US Congress, 1981]
18. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) now has 60 different types of human cancer in cell culture, and the facility to test twenty thousands compounds each year against them.
19. “Indeed, the evidence shows that instead of helping doctors, researchers working with animals have held back medial progress and have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of death.” (Dr Vernon Coleman, ‘Why Animal Experiments Must Stop’, European Medical Journal, 1994, p71)
20. "The wasted time and energy over the modern lines of cancer research are greatly to be deplored. We are sorry to think that so many able research workers are being tricked into believing that the cause of cancer will be discovered by animal experiments"( Medical Times. Jan 1936.).
21. "I can`t agree with the researchers who believe that results obtained in laboratory animals are applicable to human beings"( Oesler,H. Quick. 15 Mar 1979).
Pick two random numbers between 1 and 21. Copy and paste the two corresponding quotes from the list below and email it, along with a short polite message, to Shoe Zone at
info@shoezone.net That way they will get a selection of the evidence that proves that vivisection and cancer research are separate, incompatible subjects.
- VIN
1. In June 1978, Dr Albert Sabin (who was credited with developing a polio vaccine) informed a conference in Naples, Italy, "Laboratory cancers have nothing in common with natural human cancers...Human cancers are greatly different from the artifical tumours caused by experimenters in the laboratories"( Sabin,A. 1978 cited in Croce,P. Vivisection or Science. CIVITAS. 1992[ref]
2. "One must, however, realise that there are vast differences between tumours occuring naturally in humans and those induced under laboratory conditions in rodents"( Hellstrom,KE. Hellstrom,I. FASEB Journal. vol 3. 1989).
3. "Most cancer research is done on mice using a tumour type called a sarcoma, whilst human tumours are of a different type called a carcinoma"( Peto,R. quoted in Tudge,C. World Medicine. vol 15 no 3. 1979). Sarcomas are defined as cancers arising in tissues that make up an organ rather than being restricted to a particular organ and can arise in the fibrous tissue, muscle, fat, bone, cartilage, blood, and lymphatic vessels, whilst carcinomas are defined as cancers arising within the tissue that lines the skin and internal organs of the body( Martin,EA. Concise Medical Dictionary. 4th ed. Oxford Uni Press. 1994).
4. Apart from other important biochemical and morphological differences these cancers do not produce metastases, that is, just that development which in man is the principle cause of the fatal outcome of the disease, and a development which cannot be produced, either by physical or chemical means, even in monkeys...” [Prof Pietro Croce “Vivisection or Science: A choice to make” p46]
5. “There are many differences between the tumors that have been transplanted into nude mice and the ones hat are still in humans. For example: cell cycle parameters, growth rate, metastatic spread, invasive properties, origin of stroma, pharmacokinetics, and the metabolism of the tumor-bearing host are different from the situation in the cancer patient.” [Boven, Epie and Winograd (Eds) ‘The Nude Mouse in Oncology Research’ CRC Press 1991 p92.
Carcinogen screening
6. “The standard carcinogen tests that use rodents are an obsolescent relic of the ignorance of past decades.” Dr P Abelson, Science, 21 Sep 1990, p1357.
7. Drug company Pfizer assessed tests routinely used to verify whether the animal method was effective. They found accuracy rates extremely low (37%) and concluded: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.” [D Salsburg, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1983, vol 3, p63-67]
8. As late as 1993 it was argued that tobacco did not cause cancer, based on animal tests. Animal tests have consistently indicated smoking to be safe. [New York Times Dec 6 1993]
9. An evaluation of using animals to screen for carcinogens examined chemicals classed as dangerous in animals. 79% were not a definite or probably carcinogen in humans. The authors concluded: “...validation studies have found the rodent bioessay to be lacking in human specificity (i.e. the ability to detect human non-carcinogens)… or even human sensitivity (i.e. the ability to detect human carcinogens at all)….” [Prof Jarrard Bailey, ATLA 34, 19-27, 2006]
10. Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [DiCarlo DrugMet Rev, 15; p409-131984.]
11. 95% of compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [ D Salsburg, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1983, vol 3, p63-67]
12. Finding new drugs
13. The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. [Science vol 278, Nov 7 th 1997, p1041]
14. The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40, 000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. From this expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but were useless for humans. A lab handbook concluded “despite 25 years of intensive work and positive results in animals, not a single anti-tumor drug emerged from this work” [JCW Salen ‘Animal Models – Principles and Problems’ in “Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science” Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) 1994, p4]
15. First Cancer drug Actinomycin-D discovered by accident in humans.(Coley, W, 1983, Postgraduate vol 8, p278-276) Later fell into disuse because it was toxic in animals (Sokoloff, B 1952 Cancr, New Approaches, New Hope, Devin Adair Co, New York.)
16.Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."
17. Irwin Bross “While conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the treatment or treatment of human cancer”. [Irwin Bross, former director of Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research in evidence to US Congress, 1981]
18. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) now has 60 different types of human cancer in cell culture, and the facility to test twenty thousands compounds each year against them.
19. “Indeed, the evidence shows that instead of helping doctors, researchers working with animals have held back medial progress and have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of death.” (Dr Vernon Coleman, ‘Why Animal Experiments Must Stop’, European Medical Journal, 1994, p71)
20. "The wasted time and energy over the modern lines of cancer research are greatly to be deplored. We are sorry to think that so many able research workers are being tricked into believing that the cause of cancer will be discovered by animal experiments"( Medical Times. Jan 1936.).
21. "I can`t agree with the researchers who believe that results obtained in laboratory animals are applicable to human beings"( Oesler,H. Quick. 15 Mar 1979).
Little Moo Moo
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
also
30.01.2009 13:34
most shops give charitable donations and yes i think they all should be to non-animal testing companys but surely we have larger bigger targets which are better to spend our time at?
if you want go go leaflet race for life feel free cancer research make loads of money through that, some how i dont see you doing it.
i cant believe its not mental
To "Also"
31.01.2009 17:52
But, saying that, it is entirely possible that the people at Shoe Zone didn't realise, and might change charities to something like MacMillan if they become concerned about PR.
As long as messages are polite and positive, drawing this to their attention can't do any harm. And sending a message to Shoe Zone (a very small part of the problem) doesn't mean someone can't also contact the larger players, or spend time contacting other companies, including card shops if they choose to do that.
I just think it doesn't hurt to make as many people/companies aware of these issues as possible and let them know of alternative charities which will put their charitable donations to better use.
Emma
Emma