(from Latin vivus – live and sectio – dissection) – vivisection, performing operations on a living animal to study the functions of the body, the effects of drugs, substances, the development of methods of surgical treatment, etc. In vivisection, the study is conducted during the operation itself – in an acute experience, for example, by irritation, transplantation or removal of a particular organ.
In other cases, with a chronic experience (the beginning of this method was put by Pavlov IP), the operation serves only as preparation for further research (for example, when creating a fistula salivary gland or stomach). Vivisection is of great importance and is used in medical and physiological studies.
In experiments on animals, only rodents are used.
Approximately 2 million animals are subject to experiments in Canada, in France – 7 million, 17 million – in the US and about 800 million worldwide. 90 percent of these animals are rats, mice, fish or birds. 18 species of different animals serve for research (85.5%), for testing products (9.5%) and for education (5%). A large number of animals become victims of science: cats, dogs, primates, frogs, insects, birds, rabbits, calves and their mothers, pigs, hamsters, etc.
Sources of obtaining laboratory animals are legal.
Many of the sources are indeed such, but the rest are related to illegal commerce. Animals come from zoos, specialized nurseries or reproduce in special conditions. There are companies that are engaged in breeding rodents. There are those who grow about one and a half million animals a year, while animals are grown in such conditions that they do not have contact with any viruses. Other companies are suppliers of rabbits infected with certain diseases, rats suffering from obesity, guinea pigs, which lack the immune system, primate, haemophilia, and the like. Many primates are caught in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, South America and Africa. In some cases, only one or two out of ten captured monkeys survive during their transportation to the laboratory. Because of this business, many animal species are now on the verge of extinction. From 1954 to 1960, more than one and a half million primates from around the world paid with their freedom and life for their contribution to the testing of polio vaccines. The United States is the largest supplier of primates: from 13 to 17 thousand individuals a year.
Experiments on animals serve the benefit of humanity.
Laboratory products test household products (soaps, creams, perfumes, shampoos, etc.), chemical products (ink, paints, cleaning products, lubricants, etc.), pesticides and weapons (nuclear and other ). Some animals are subjected to multiple experiments for several days, months or even years in a row. Deprivation of oxygen and sleep. Creation of anxiety, aggressiveness, insanity, increased pressure with the help of psychological pressure or injury to the arteries. Transplantation, transplantation of heads or organs, electric discharges, tumors caused by strokes, cancer caused by the intake of chemicals, forced use of drugs or alcohol, murder, blood transfusion into the heart or ears … Dogs, monkeys and hares are tied up and forced to smoke, mice are kept near smoking cigarettes, horses are injected with nicotine. Here is not a complete list of what happens to animals. Can this serve the benefit of science and humanity?
People stand above animals and therefore have the right to use animals for their whims.
Such a statement actually allows slavery. Our, so to speak, superiority (intellectual or physical) does not allow us to torment the weaker when it comes to animals, children, people retarded in mental development or even beggars. This arrogant power attitude does not recognize even the most basic rights of animals.It is not necessary to ask a question about whether animals can reason or speak, it is better to think about the fact that they too can suffer.
Millions of animals put to sleep in nurseries due to incurable diseases could serve as experiments.
There is a significant difference between the lulling of an animal suffering from pain and the compulsion to suffer from painful, humiliating and inhuman torture.
Animal is an ideal sample for the study of human diseases.
The assumption that a rat is a miniature human being is an error and scientific deception. Man and animal have significant anatomical and physiological differences. They react differently to all products. A tablet of aspirin can kill a cat and cause malignancies in the mouse. Penicillin kills Indian piglets. Arsenic does not affect monkeys and chickens. Morphine calms people down, but has no effect on cats and horses. Insulin causes ugliness in chickens, hares and mice. Many diseases that kill a person do not affect animals (for example, AIDS). Human cancer is different from that of animals: cancer tumors in animals can not develop for 20 years. Human tuberculosis has a completely different type from that which is artificially induced in animals. Human and animal metabolism occurs in different ways. People 60 times more sensitive to thalidomide (soothing, prescribed to pregnant women) than mice, are 100 times more sensitive than rats, in 200 – dogs and 700 times more sensitive than hamsters. When it is profitable for them, scientists recognize that experiments on animals can never be fully extrapolated to humans. Pursued by the law for harmful medicines (such as thalidomide) or for toxic products, experimenters immediately recall this fundamental difference between a person and an animal. So why continue to put experiments, if they are not already reliable initially?
Experiments on animals protect a person against the harmful side effects of medicines.
On the contrary, there are a large number of drugs tested in animals, which later turn out to be toxic, carcinogenic and causing mutations in humans. In the 1960s, 3,500 asthmatics died worldwide from the isoproterenol inhaler. This product causes heart damage in rats, but does not affect dogs and pigs. Cats can also tolerate 175 times more doses than patients with asthma used before their death. From Fenformin, a medicine for diabetics, 16,000 people died before the company stopped releasing it. Oralax, helped the rats recover from one of the forms of arthritis. However, in humans, he caused about 3.5 million serious side effects, 61 people died from taking this drug. Phanagetin, an analgesic, which is a constituent of 200 different drugs (eg, Veganina), designed to fight against flu, fever and pain, actually provokes kidney contamination and destruction, and causes kidney tumors. Reserpine, used at elevated blood pressure, 3 times increases the risk of breast cancer and is one of the factors causing brain cancer, pancreas, cervix and ovaries.
The main goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to ensure people’s health.
It would be more truthful to say that the purpose of the pharmaceutical industry is to provide humanity with illnesses. The primary goal is profit. Annual sales of pharmaceutical companies in Canada are more than 4 billion dollars. In North America, various pharmaceutical companies spend about $ 3.5 billion on advertising their products. They are wonderful examples of the power of money. Moreover, they greatly influence the government, universities, doctors and medical publications. Of the 177 new drugs delivered to the Canadian market from 1988 to 1990, only 8 (4.5% of the total) can be attributed to “improving the therapeutic effect for the patient”. The rest of the medicines were only variations of the same medicines and were produced only to raise marketing plans and conquer the market. Even if pharmaceutical companies declare that preliminary testing of drugs on animals is the key to protecting human health, there are also medicines that, after testing, have been found to be potentially dangerous, but, nevertheless, they are still allowed for sale. For example, AZT, an antiviral for AIDS patients, was tested in rats and caused mutations and cancer in them. Nevertheless, the medicine began to be produced. Medication Tamoxifen prevents the recurrence of breast cancer in women previously cured of this disease. In laboratory conditions, this agent caused cancer of the sexual glands in mice and liver cancer in rats. Omeprazole, prescribed for an ulcer, had a carcinogenic effect on rats. Tretinoin, used to fight acne, increases skin tumors in mice.
Any progress in medicine, whether it is a medication or a new method of conducting an operation, or a new way of treatment, should be tested on a living being. In case of failure with the animal, it is necessary to continue testing on the person. The choice is between a dog and a human child!
Testing of all medicines, one way or another, ends on a person, despite experiments with animals. Moreover, experimenters never rush to put experiments on people. All because vivisection leads to dehumanization and a decrease in the sensitivity of human consciousness, experiments on humans are a logical and tragic consequence of experiments on animals. This situation is similar to what was in countries with a totalitarian regime, the kata trained first on animals, and then tortured people. A large number of people, newborns, people with retarded mental development, orphans or the elderly, prisoners, beings as helpless and defenseless as laboratory animals, were forcibly sacrificed to science without their consent.
Experiments on animals are associated with progress in medicine.
In most cases, this is most likely a lie than the truth. You can ask yourself if medicine develops if an increasing number of people die from cancer, congenital diseases, various defeats of the immune system (viruses, toxins, pesticides, medications, antibiotics or vaccines). The average life expectancy has increased, but its quality has only suffered. People do not recover, but only are kept artificially alive. A stethoscope, thermometer, electrocardiogram, blood pressure measurement, percussion, X-ray, resuscitation equipment and other diagnostic or therapeutic tools, called medicine of the most significant, are not used for animals. In 1785, an English doctor and botanist William V. successfully diagnosed his patients with cores using a solution of dried leaves of digitalis. Researchers, for their part, discovered that this plant can cause a strong increase in blood pressure in dogs. It was necessary to wait about 150 years, so that the digitalis was recognized as safe for humans. Aspirin, an extract of the bark of willow, has been around for 100 years. Worldwide, there are about 150 billion medications sold without a license. All of these drugs are based on aspirin. This substance, known as an effective and popular remedy, could never become commercial if the fact of toxic effects of aspirin on rats, mice, dogs, cats and monkeys were taken into account. Iodine and penicillin are other examples of drugs developed without animal testing.The fundamental progress of medicine in many of its fields is connected with clinical observation of patients, with sanitary measures, unforeseen discoveries and epidemiology. For real progress in medicine, experiments on animals are not necessary. The USA, the world’s largest consumer of laboratory animals, is not considered a country with the most healthy nation. In terms of life expectancy, Americans occupy only 17th place in the ranking of all countries.
It was thanks to experiments on animals that insulin was discovered, and it became possible to treat diabetes.
During the last century, countless dogs were sacrificed when trying to study diabetes. Since the discovery of insulin, mortality from diabetes has not decreased, but even increased. The incidence of this disease is doubled every 10 years. There is an erroneous assumption that the Canadians Best and Banting testified about the role of insulin in the treatment of diabetes in 1921. In 1788, Dr. Thomas Cowley already established a link between diabetes and destructive processes in the pancreas. This was done without experiments on animals, during a doctor’s examination of one of his patients who died from diabetes. Already in 1766, another doctor, Matthew Dobson, discovered an elevated sugar level in the urine of one of his patients. It’s been 50 years since the English surgeon McDonagh has planted doubts about the use of insulin. He claimed that diabetes is a symptom, not a disease, and insulin only temporarily relieves this symptom. The medication does not treat the cause of the disease, so there is no reason to use it. For the study of diabetes, dogs were selected, despite the fact that they have animal instincts, and their metabolism is radically different from that in humans. If vivisection were a cessation in the past, perhaps we could learn a little more about the true mechanism of the action of diabetes, rather than be proud of the absurd experiments on dogs or rodents.
Cancer has become possible to heal precisely because of animal experiments.
Since 1970 in Canada, the incidence of cancer in humans has increased by 1 percent per year. One person in three suffers from this disease. In 2000, the national research team predicted an increase in the number of people suffering from cancer, by 50% over the next 10 years. We are approaching the critical mark and, despite the investments of the last decades, we can not suppress the global cancer incidence in any way. Cancer is a disease associated at the same time with the emotional state, with the immune system, with habits and nutrition, and with environmental factors. The tumor itself is not a disease, but only its manifestation (symptom). Modern medicine is known for the fact that it is able to fight only with symptoms, not with the disease itself. A rat, cat, dog or monkey can not be approached to find the cause of an outbreak of cancer. A tumor that is consciously caused in an animal is completely incomparable with a tumor that develops in humans for many years. Dr. Robert Sharp rightly argued that the use of animals that can develop cancerous tumors other than human, and is the reason why cancer research is still not successful.
AIDS has become possible to heal precisely because of experiments on animals.
In order to collect donations and money, laboratories use the same arguments about AIDS as in the case of cancer. Animals of different species, but mostly monkeys and chimpanzees, are forcibly infected with the AIDS virus, despite the fact that scientists can not transmit a person’s AIDS to an animal. In addition, animals react differently to the human virus. Trying to play the role of inept wizards with poisonous viruses, experimental scientists can accidentally create a new dangerous disease, similar to AIDS …
Without experiments on animals, such surgical discoveries as transplantation would not have been possible.
Many well-known surgeons, including Abel Deszhardin, a lecturer at the Surgical College in Paris, claim that they have never seen a good surgeon who would have learned anything new with the help of animals. Study of treatises on anatomy, dismemberment of human corpses, observation of patients – this is the true school of surgery. Anatomy of a dog can not inform about the structure of a person. To believe that organ transplantation is progress, continues to be a delusion. There will never be enough organs to be used to treat all patients. Only very wealthy people can afford this expensive procedure. And the poorer will only supply their kidneys, eyes, etc. to the market. Even after sacrificing monkeys or pigs, transplanting their organs to people, the incidence of disease will not decrease until people begin to take more responsibility for their health. People need to start with changes in nutrition, in their emotional state, in a state of the environment. We also note that patients who undergone transplantation of organs risk cancer 100-140 times more, due to the use of anti-rejecting drugs.
A vaccine against poliomyelitis would not have been invented without experiments on animals.
Now there are more and more opponents of the use of vaccines because of their harmfulness. The polio vaccine, called “miraculous” in the 1950s, was in fact dangerous. Produced from the kidneys of monkeys, this vaccine was repeatedly infected with an animal virus. The vaccine increases a person’s vulnerability to poliomyelitis and most patients with this disease should be “thankful” for this particular vaccine. It is obvious that a vaccine containing a living virus can not be administered without the risk of causing paralysis. There is no scientific confirmation that the vaccine destroyed the disease. Poliomyelitis also disappeared in countries where the vaccine has never been used.
Not all experimenters are cruel sadists, they are just scientists who are in search of truth.
It seems that for many experimenters the goal justifies the means and their path, leading to the truth so tortuous and self-sacrificing that they are compelled to involve animals and people in torturing. But drawing wounds, blows of burns or causing serious poisoning of animals smacks of cruelty. To ignore this is to believe that scientists are blinded by the tenets of the scientific religion. Vivisection makes them inhuman and immoral creatures. What are the mental faculties of a person devoid of sensitivity and receptivity? If a vivisector does various burns to the dogs or transplants the tissues, he has the right to do so in the name of science. If it is an ordinary person, he will be brought to justice (and this is true) and he will be fined for cruelty. The laboratory animals sacrificed to the altar of science were exposed to microwaves for many days in a row, receiving serious injuries. At the same time – in the late 80’s – a young resident of Ottawa, was sentenced to prison for killing a cat (he cooked a cat in a microwave oven). The court called this incredible cruelty. The University Chair is named in honor of the resident of Montreal, Hans Seli. He received a huge allowance to be able to expose thousands of animals (hares, dogs, cats, mice and rats) to stressful situations: burns, poisoning, drowning, severe cold and heat, removal of glands, squeezing of the tail and testicles, paw fractures, crushing of bodies etc. Claude Bernard (1813 – 1878) trained live dogs in specialized ovens. He who is considered the father of vivisection, is recognized by many scientists as a genius. He would be approached by the definition of Johan Uda: “The vivisector is a morally underdeveloped individual with pathological intentions.” A person, even if he is a scientist, has neither the right of ownership, nor the right of absolute possession over animals and over those who can be regarded as simple beings. Animals, like all living things, have rights based on their ability to suffer. Suffering is suffering, no matter what knowledge is gained through it.
Fighters against vivisectionism are sentimental people, terrorists, extremists and radicals, they are against the development of science.
Fighters against vivisectionism are part of the vast movement of humanists, doctors, scientists and philosophers. Over the past centuries, there have been many opponents of vivisectionism: Leonardo da Vinci, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, Albert Einstein, Georges Bernard Shaw, Gandhi, Ani Besan are just some of them. Queen Victoria believed that experimenting with animals is a disgrace to humanity and Christianity. For more than 100 years there have been numerous organizations in America and Europe against animal experiments. There are more and more opponents of this immoral activity around the world. Only in Canada, more than 25 organizations are struggling to abolish vivisection. In Geneva, there is an International Association of Physicians for the abolition of vivisection. In this organization there are more than 150 members of the medical community from 14 countries of the world, and they all view vivisection as a crime against science, against the life of people and animals.
If experimentation on animals is reversed, the consequences for human health will be catastrophic.
Human health has nothing to do with the gene mutations of piglets, mice that have human cells, a heart transplant to a baboon, or the cloning of monkeys. People need to strengthen their immune system, protect themselves, reduce the intake of animal protein and increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. It is necessary to stop producing chemicals and to admit that all toxic products guilty of environmental pollution have been called safe on the basis of animal tests. To proclaim that a chemical pesticide was harmless after testing it on animals is not only unscientific, but also dangerous, since such statements give rise to an erroneous sense of security among users of toxic products. You need to turn to holistic medicine to learn about health. The person is not only the body, which is fully proved by the placebo effect. It was fairly noted by Norman Cousins that a placebo is a medicine inside of us. The placebo effect, so to say the effect produced by the inert substance, which is substituted for medicines to comfort the patient, actually exists in pharmacology. Five out of ten people suffering from diarrhea will be able to recover from a placebo. In the group of patients receiving placebo instead of antihistamines, 77.4% of people developed drowsiness, one of the characteristic effects of antihistamines. In another experiment, placebo was given to 133 patients suffering from depression and who had not previously taken any medications for this ailment. In four of them, the response to placebo was so positive that they had to be withdrawn from the subsequent experiment with real medicines. Saline injections of placebo were made to morphine-dependent patients, and they continued to suffer from dependence until the injection was withdrawn. It is absurd to use animals as models for studying such diseases kA migraine, depression, obesity, alcoholism or Alzheimer’s disease, in which a highly developed human psyche can not be realized by the person himself. A human being is not only a body that is only a physical shell. Man is connected with his feelings, soul, willpower.
There is no alternative to vivisection.
Changing consciousness and non-violent medicine are alternatives to vivisection. Moreover, there are more reliable methods for testing medicines or consumer products.A large number of scientists consider such methods more convincing than experiments on animals. In 1982, Professors Farnsworth and Pecuto of the University of Illinois Pharmacology Department stated that there are sufficient methods for determining the toxicity of drugs. These are enzymes, bactericidal cultures, cells and human tissues (obtained from the placenta after delivery or biopsy), formulation developed by the program, organization of donor banks, etc. A researcher at the University of Quebec, for example, created a program simulating a frog. This frog reacts to experiments in the same way as the living one.