http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism/ is the source in case the image lacks clarity.
One expects the use of logic from so-called scientists, and actual sound research. On the issue of animal testing – it is not only the animal’s life some put at stake by lying/concealing facts because they have sold their soul (or the right, or the ability to use their neurones) to the corporations that fund your so-called research, but it is human healths and lives as well. If there are no direct consequences, scientific progress is being hindered, thanks to some “scientists”.
Let us put morality, respect and basic decency* aside for a sec and look up the science:
The Dr. Hadwen Trust has been doing actual applicable (in contrast with what is currently called research by vivisectionists and the like) research since 1970, as has Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine since 1985. Their websites (linked) have extensive information, as does National Anti-Vivisection Alliance’s and Americans For Medical Advancement. For some reason I can’t find any recent activity by Europeans for Medical Advancement but I’ll keep searching.
BUAV has been campaigning since 1898 and Antidote Europe since 2010(?), there are resources in English and French on their page. There are research centres and other bodies trying to multiply the options and research models available for what is politely called ‘alternative research’ while what passes as research because it is profitable, and we all conveniently have states that put profit over people, carries on fooling people. What is produced by those fraudulent medical industries are probably being tested on 3rd-world patients or low-income local ones, and what was done in animal research labs was only to potentially cover the product companies legally, even though those results may be rejected in court.
“Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans.. In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability.” ~ Herbert Gundersheimer M.D.
Un nouveau témoignage d’un médecin britannique, Dr Martin Ashby, le confirme : expérimenter sur des animaux ne permet pas de trouver des remèdes pour l’homme. Cette pratique persiste surtout car elle est très lucrative et permet de “publier”. [Antidote Europe]
* Compassion is irrelevant to morality, respect or decency is something any thinking person can practise. One can feel no empathy but be able to understand the logic of why it should not be permissible to harm.
** “Although animal experiments testing cosmetic and household products may be abolished with public support alone, I think that until the medical profession get onside, medical experiments using animals will be harder to abolish. Unfortunately there are a lot of vested interests and careers built upon animal experimentation their continuation. There is a lot of intimidation and conservatism. As the medical and scientific community increasingly question the scientific validity of animal models, as models for human disease, the profession will begin to reject them. This is why it is so important for organisations such as Antidote Europe to campaign” from most recent interview on Antidote Europe, with Dr. Martin Ashby http://antidote-europe.org/interviews/dr-martin-ashby-on-animal-experimentation
His French quote above is basically a summary including “I once heard a colleague say at medical school, ‘Inject a rat and out comes a paper’. That always stuck in my mind. My views remain the same. Animal research to find treatments for human disease is not the way forward.” and “Animal experiments as models for human disease are not, in my view, science.”