Testing drugs on animals won't cure cancer

R.I.P Dad 

My dad died this year. He had a rare type cancer. He was only 62 and its hard to imagine that someone with such a big personality who could light up a room and make everyone laugh, is gone.

My dad didn't die of cancer. No, he died of kidney failure and starved to death.

The drugs to "cure" him, destroyed his kidneys.

The drugs they gave him to "cure" him, gave him a condition that meant even the mere smell of food made him feel violently ill, so he couldn't eat.

Cancer drugs kill people not just cancer 

How many times do you hear people who've lost loved ones to cancer say they died from cancer, when if you looked at many of their death certificates you'd find the drugs killed them, especially the chemotherapy which basically poisons people's bodies?

The trouble with cancer drugs is that they still continue to use the same chemotherapy drugs that have been killing people for decades. 

The main reason is these drugs work on some lab animals. 

**That's animals who are not the same as humans; who differ in many biological ways. 

**Animals who are kept in tiny cages, in artificial, controlled environments unlike the human patients who are allowed to live normal lives. 

The trouble with cancer research

Every time you hear about "advances in cancer research" and "the next cancer wonder drug," what they don't usually tell you (and journalists are too lazy to ask) is that too often this new, amazing breakthrough has been made by testing on animals only. Testing that is not reliable for so many reasons. Yet, the only way you can tell if a drug is going to work on humans is by testing it on humans - that includes using it on human tissue.

"Testing on animals, isn't just cruel, it also wastes time when more reliable methods should be used."

Considering the billions that have been spent on cancer research (so much of it donated by people who've lost someone who had cancer and who are conned into believing cancer research on animals will find a cure for humans) and the millions of animals who've died in the name of so called cancer research, little progress has been made on finding a cure. Sure, many patients are living longer, but how many people are actually cured?

I've known people to go into remission, but the cancer has always come back and either killed them or the drugs have. That seems to be what happens in most cases.

I look forward to a day when there is a cure, but this won't be achieved by experimenting on animals.

How can you help?

***Make sure your relatives know where the money most cancer charities raise goes and how it doesn't help to find a cure and causes needless animal suffering.

***Donate to cancer charities that don't fund animal experiments like hospices.

****Donate to charities that fund non-animal research like the Dr Hadwen Trust. They award grants to researchers who use alternatives to animal testing. 

What do the experts say? 

"I'm a cancer researcher, and the traditional model for testing drugs which are used for cancer therapy is to use a mouse. But recently, there have been great advances made in the laboratory in growing cancer cells in dishes, and I think it's got to the stage where, in many situations, this provides a much more accurate model than the mouse." 

Professor Ian Mackenzie, Professor of Stem Cell Science, Blizard Institute, London, BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 31 July 2013.

"Because oncology (cancer) drugs have a success rate of only 5%, it is clear that animal models are only marginally effective. " 

M.B. Esch, T.L. King and M.L. Shuler, The Role of Body-on-a-Chip Devices in Drug and Toxicity Studies, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2011. 13:55–72 (doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124629)2010

"Animals don't reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people." - Fran Visco, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1987 and four years later founded the National Breast Cancer Coalition, an advocacy group. 

How to spot an animal testing company - Case Study: lavera (natural cosmetics)

I was doing research for a friend about a company called Lavera who make comsetics and this is what they had to say on their website.

Q17. Statement Animal Testing

Ever since the foundation of the laverana company we have neither been conducting animal testing nor have asked others to do so. Being a manufacturer of natural care products animal testing is certainly incompatible with our company philosophy!

Of course, laverana makes every effort not to use any raw material which was tested on animals - as requested by the German Society for animal protection. laverana's suppliers are expected to prove by means of spot check their non-animal testing.

Unfortunately, lavera as a producer of natural care products cannot give legally valid guarantee for the products of its raw material suppliers. Recently skin irritations have occurred more and more frequently. Now we have to find out whether raw materials that were tested 20 years ago today are still well tolerated by human skin. At the same time the urgency of the use of innovative raw materials becomes more and more obvious. For lavera this means that test periods of established ingredients may be 20 years ago, for innovative products this period most likely is much shorter.

In addition, laverana is a member of BDIH. This is an organization the members of which vouch for following the strict guidelines of "Controlled Natural Cosmetics". These guidelines include the requirements of societies for animal protection.

It all sounds good, doesn't it? Especially the bit where they say 'Ever since the foundation of the laverana company we have neither been conducting animal testing nor have asked others to do so. Being a manufacturer of natural care products animal testing is certainly incompatible with our company philosophy!'

But then you get to the paragraph where they say 'Unfortunately, lavera as a producer of natural care products cannot give legally valid guarantee for the products of its raw material suppliers.'

In other words, they can't guarantee that the raw materials in their cosmetics have not been tested on animals. Why not when they claim they check?

The other part that should immediately have alarm bells ringing that this isn't a cruelty free company are - 'Recently skin irritations have occurred more and more frequently. Now we have to find out whether raw materials that were tested 20 years ago today are still well tolerated by human skin. At the same time the urgency of the use of innovative raw materials becomes more and more obvious. For lavera this means that test periods of established ingredients may be 20 years ago, for innovative products this period most likely is much shorter.'

In other words, because of 'recent skin irritations' their ingredients may now be tested on animals. See how they skirt around the issue and don't actually say that they are tested on animals, but infer that they are. This is another way to tell if a company uses animal testing - they will be sketchy about the details.

Note - there is a way to test if products or ingredients will irritate human skin - do skin patch test on human volunteers. Scientists can also grow human skin in test tubes. There is NO excuse for animal testing. None whatsoever and if they say there is they are lying. Human volunteers are more reliable than animals. They will tell you when it starts to sting or burn. Animals cannot. All they can do is sit there in pain.

Many of their products are also not suitable for vegetarians when they contain carmine (the foundations do not and are labeled as 'vegan', but some of their lipstick do contain carmine for instance). On the same page, under Carmine (also known as cochineal) they say this - Q14. What is Carmine? Click here and here to read more.

"Carmine is a natural colourant, derived from insect source. It is commonly used to achieve bright reds and pinks in lipsticks. The synthetic alternative to carmine can irritate lips, dry lips out and are very problematic. Many synthetic colours are also known to be carcinogenic." 

I don't know about you, but I fail to see what's natural about a colorant derived from insects that are picked out of trees, boiled alive and then dried out and made into a colorant.  

As it's a colorant derived from insects, it's not suitable for vegetarians far less vegans.

Note - The one thing that Lavera are to be congratulated on is for using full disclosure when it comes to saying what ingredients are in each product, including saying whether things are vegan or not. Whilst their cruelty free credentials may be a bit dodgy, at least unlike so many other companies they actually list ingredients allowing buyers to make an informed choice.

Now if only they could be a certain about saying their products are cruelty free.

For more information, check out Living Cruelty Free: Life a more Compassionate Life, available now on Amazon on Kindle and in paperback. Click here for more details.

A sad day as Urban Decay turn to the dark side

I was very sad to hear that Urban Decay, who were one of the mainstays of cruelty free cosmetics, have decided to sell their products in China. Under Chinese laws, cosmetics and their ingredients that are sold in China must be tested on animals. Urban Decay (isn't that a great name for a company with decaying morals) know this.

Ironically, this is one of the ads still on their company site. Misleading or what?

After their announcement the company has quite rightly lost their Leaping Bunny accreditation. This means that although they are listed in my paper copy of the Little Book of Cruelty Free 2012 they are no longer a cruelty free company.

What Urban Decay say

In their statement (taken down from their site because of their customer's anger at what they're doing), Urban Decay claim that ‘For 16 years, we have been committed to two key causes: women’s rights, and the fight against animal testing’ yet China has an appalling human rights record especially when it comes to women who are treated like second class citizens.

Here’s their ‘it isn’t us, it’s them (the Chinese government)' statement.
They claim they won't make a profit for some time, so they're going their for humanitarian reasons? Of course not, China has over a billion people. It's money Urban Decay want and I personally believe saying otherwise is misleading.

What their customers are saying

Customers have quite rightly vented their anger at this decision on the company’s Facebook page.

What the Leaping Bunny people are saying
The Leaping Bunny program quickly acted and have removed Urban Decay from their lists as well as issuing a statement saying why.

How do I know now if a company is completely cruelty free?
For a free downloadable guide to cruelty free companies (Urban Decay have been removed), go to http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping.phpthere’s also an option to have the paper version sent to you. I have one and it comes in very handy. It will fit in your purse or back pocket.

I would also advise people to AVOID any products made in China. You can't even trust clothing from China for fear that the faux fur is real fur from cats or dogs.