EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I Take Animal-Tested Drugs
One of my doctors has told me to get my affairs in order, which is why I'm
writing this column. I want to explain why someone who takes so many
animal-tested drugs is opposed to animal research.
I have full-blown leukemia and the chemotherapy I'm taking doesn't seem to
be working all that well. And even if it does kick into high gear soon,
it's not a cure, only a brief delay of the disease's progression. One way
or another, my odds aren't good.
Still, I keep popping pills each morning and night, sitting for many hours
each week with an IV in my arm, dealing with all the side-effects of
treatment, hoping for a miracle. Some people may call me a
hypocrite—to take advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let
me explain.
The truth is that I don't feel I've ultimately benefited from
our healthcare system, despite some truly exceptional care and
many amazingly compassionate practitioners. Just the opposite.
I first developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 2004 from the chemo I
was prescribed for breast cancer. In 2006, I underwent a stem cell
transplant, which gave me two years of remission (albeit with many
horrible side effects). This past July, I relapsed—this time
with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). My prognosis is grim.
Throughout the past six years, I have felt terribly guilty about the drugs
and procedures I've undergone because I know that so many animals have
suffered in their development. I know about these conditions because of my
former job—working for a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to
animal research. I know about the conditions from talking with former
animal researchers and others who have witnessed the cruelty. In fact, one
man I know from an Internet support group remembers hearing lab dogs
yelping in pain at the hospital where we both had our transplants.
The truth--mostly hidden from public view--is that animal research
is horribly cruel. Despite what the research community claims,
federal regulations are extremely weak and poorly enforced, and
some species—mice, for example—are completely excluded from
any protection. Many investigations have shown just how bad conditions
are.
But as someone who recently signed up for hospice, I have another major
problem with animal research. I wonder if science would have found a cure
for my leukemia by now if they weren't sidetracked by misleading animal
tests. I wonder if the chemo that I took for breast cancer would have been
safer it hadn't been tested in species that are so unlike our own.
The truth is that using animals to develop and test drugs is a system that
doesn't work very well. It's an old paradigm, one that is fortunately
beginning to change, however slowly. A growing number of scientists are
developing some exciting (and more effective) non-animal alternatives.
These changes have been inspired partly by concern over animal cruelty but
also because animal research and testing have so often failed us. Some
government agencies are even starting to call for more alternatives.
More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals
end up not working for humans. It's because animals—however similar
they are to us—have different physiological systems. What works in a
mouse usually doesn't work in a human.
History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals—Aspirin,
for example—that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages
are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in
animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five
other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.
If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like
all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want
to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice.
The current drug approval system doesn't yet acknowledge the superiority
of human-focused, nonanimal research methods (such as microdosing) and all
pharmaceutical companies must use animals to get their drugs approved.
Hopefully, this situation will soon change. A coalition of animal
protection groups and physicians has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to accept the results of alternative tests, when available.
If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I
could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals
and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many
participants die in Phase One trials—but it turned out I already
knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't
work in humans.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
15 Comments so far
Show AllThere seems to be a disconnect between the headline, which intimates, a pro-animal tested drug position and the content of the article which clearly argues against animal testing.
Incidentally, the headline's question "why I take animal-tested drugs" is never asked nor directly answered in the article. One could surmise the answer to the headline's "why", is because the writer had no choice but to take animal-tested drugs.
Is the Huffington Post falling into the same practice as corporate news? As reporters don't usually decide the headline of the articles they write, shouldn't CD change the headline to more accurately reflect the content of the piece? This form of manipulation has long been used in the MSM. Why does CD perpetuate it?
Right on, TL.
As for the writer, we all "want to live", but at the end, at what cost? At whose expense? Why not except death and move on?
>>Why not except death and move on?
I wholeheartedly accept your exception of death.
Tom - how 'bout reading the article BEFORE commenting?
Third paragraph from the end: "If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice."
I did read the article. My comment is not arguing for or against animal testing. Incidentally, I am opposed. Rather my comment is an attempt to show that the headline "why I take animal-tested drugs" which if you had NOT read the article implies that animal testing is worthwhile, when the article is clearly about the opposite.
Your admonishment "how 'bout reading the article BEFORE commenting?" is germane to my point precisely because people tend not read the text and only scan the headline. In my view the headline is FOR animal testing not against as the body of the article argues. Your comment to me would more appropriately apply to yourself.
Changing the title of an article happens all the time on CD, so does rapidly moving certain articles down page faster than others, and other articles have disappeared after only being on the site for a few minutes...
Perhaps the editors are influenced by their donors, perhaps a personal agenda of a staffer... Who knows?
Simon, i wish you well and thank you for using your dwindling days educating us about such a misguided and terrible aspect of western medicine.
Ray Berthiaume
Simon, Thank you so much for your words. I have learned so much from you. I do agree that if we left off animal research, we might have more resources available to find cures that really work on human. Of course many people profit from animal research; greed is a powerful motivator.
i appreciate the tone of this article and the author's intent. i believe animal testing is cruel. i also believe that alternative disease treatment methods , starting with changes in diet and envirnoment factors and encompasing traditional and non traditional treatments which are life affirming and often sucessfull.
Simon,
Thank you for sharing. There are many who go through the same conflict, and it helps to hear such stories.
I do not know your specific situation, but this is worth mentioning. If you haven't already done so, please consider a vegan diet. There is considerable evidence to show that a plant based protein diet actually retards cancer foci formation (at least in mice - yes, animal testing again). In your situation, every little bit helps to feel better, especially taking into account the side-effects of all your medication.
Best wishes.
Good article no matter what the heading was...It takes a lot of will and determination to speak out about modern medicine, good or bad. Thanks, Simon. Even worse is marketing a new drug before it is proven to be safe. I am positive that this is not a great time for Simon, but believe me when I say that I have shared this story with my friends and we are all sending best wishes, positive vibes for a speedy recovery and tons of good will. Take care, Simon.
Other models do exist - Tibetan and Chinese medicine, indigenous sciences - but these also involve the way one lives with the earth and in community with the Divine.
We are all always in the divine - we just have these lapses of recognition...it does seem that more and more of us are turning our attention though.
May you always see the divine shining Simon.
Why isn't anyone questioning the chemo?
I had breast cancer twice and refused chemo and radiation and I'm doing just fine. I really think many, many people die from the chemo and not the cancer.
It is possible that the chemo lead to this leukemia.
Sioux Rose
DOLL: I applaud your courage, and agree with your hypothesis. Is anyone collecting data? Probably not. Like biotech the assumption is that science is right.
Ms. Chaitowitz cleverly omits the stem-cell therapy she received. It directly increased the demand for vivisection because it required animal antibodies for sorting the stem cells that saved her from the lethal dose of radiation she received away from the mature cells that are harmful to her (graft-vs-host disease). She (and her organization, PCRM) conveniently ignores the fact that animals are vivisected in the course of medical practice, not just research and testing.
Her desperate "already happened" rationalization doesn't apply for vast amounts of medical practice that require animal exploitation. In addition to the cell sorting that gave Simon two years of life, other more mundane examples are HIV testing (clinical testing of humans to determine if they are infected) and pregnancy testing. Both require ongoing exploitation and vivisection of animals, but both are ignored by everyone who claims that animals have rights and that using them in research and testing is wrong.
And if she thinks that vegan research would have worked better than the status quo, she should have dedicated her life to research instead of demonizing those of us who have done so. PCRM's deceptions about "nonanimal alternatives" are particularly immoral, because they are lying to conceal the very thing they claim to oppose when it is politically inconvenient.
I am a researcher who uses thousands of mice in experiments that Chaitowitz's organization falsely claims are "nonanimal alternatives." Luckily, even the Federal government is less hypocritical than Chaitowitz and PCRM, and my use of mice is highly regulated despite their false claims that mouse research is not regulated.