I admit that when I think of the vivisection of animals I am ashamed of the human specie and I feel solidarity with agent Smith of Matrix when he says that humans are not mammals but viruses.
I would like to abolish animal vivisection by law.
The objection offered is that “vivisection is useful, better them than us.”
I would like to see if someone were to vivisection your cat or your dog how you would react to these words.
Anyway, vivisection is not useful and it’s not said by a comic but by the journal Nature, a reference point for the scientific world, which on 10/11/2005 published an article with the declarations of some scientists:
“ - Tests for toxicity that we have used for decades are simply bad science. Today we have the opportunity to start from zero and to develop tests based on evident proofs that give us a real opportunity for toxicology to at last become a respectable science.
- The bad quality of most of the tests on animals has been recognised. These have never undergone the rigours of validation today imposed on alternative methods “in vitro”. Most of the tests on animals over-estimate or under-estimate the toxicity, or simply are not capable of providing precise data about toxicity in relation to humans. (75% of tests on animals are done for toxicology tests – editor’s note)
- Embryo toxicology tests done on animals cannot be trusted to be extended to humans: when we discover that cortisone is toxic for the embryos of all the species tested except for humans, what should we do?
The REACH proposal is being discussed in Brussels. It’s concerned with the evaluation and regulation of chemicals sent into the environment. It has been established that these have caused a million premature deaths in the EU (cancer, degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis).
I have decided to support the Scientific Campaign group Equivita (previously called Comitato Scientifico Antivivisezionista), which is asking for a clause to be included in the REACH proposal forbidding the use of experimentation on animals to evaluate the toxicity of substances.
Experimentation on animals allows industries to get whatever result they like (by changing the species of animal used) and to avoid civil responsibility by maintaining that the animal model does not allow for “ the certainty of the test”.
There are predictive investigation methods for humans such as toxicgenomics, already in the text of the REACH proposal as a possible choice. Toxicgenomics studies the reaction of the genome of the human cell with results 100 times faster and more cost-effective.
I’m ending this long post with a thought from Albert Einstein: “Vivisection. Nothing is of such high importance as to justify such unethical methods”
PS In Lugano, I met Hans Ruesch, a really young 90-year-old founder of the antivivisection movement and author of the book: “Imperatrice Nuda” (Naked Empress or the Great Medical Fraud). I send him affectionate greetings from this Blog.
Posted by Beppe Grillo at 06:21 PM in Health/Medicine
(11) | Comments in Italian (translated)
Post a comment
| Sign up
| Send to a friend | | GrilloNews
View blog opinions
Tweet | | Condividi