Scientists from all over the world have been saying for years that the research method based on animal experimentation is not giving desirable results and that it is urgent to change the paradigm.
Think of any other science: what would we say of another research method if it offers us a 99% failure rate? Well, this is what has been happening for 16 years with Alzheimer’s research and animal experimentation.
How can they have been deluded for over 16 years? Because animal experimentation is not replicable and they are also more than used to experiments having a very low rate of transfer to humans. They are used to failure. Therefore, no one has questioned the start, despite being giving resoundingly bad results for 16 years. It is not unusual for drugs that are effective in vitro and in animal models fail in humans. Basically, it’s what happens all the time. Despite what they want us to believe otherwise.
We are not talking about an error, we are talking about an alleged deliberate manipulation.
In it was concluded that Alzheimer’s was caused by proteins that became toxic in the brain. Therefore, they have spent 16 years “creating” transgenic mice that overexpress this amyloid precursor protein. Almost all of the drugs that have hit the market in recent years are aimed at removing these plaques or preventing them from building up. That is, the model of this plate has been the prevailing theory for the last 16 years.
And now it turns out that this article may be a deliberate fraud.
Not only has it been cited hundreds of times in other papers, but roughly 100 of the 130 Alzheimer’s drugs now making their way into trials are directly designed to target the type of amyloid featured in this paper.
How could it have been manipulated? Through the images of this paper scientific. The experimental results obtained might not have been the desired results, and those data might have been changed to better fit a hypothesis.
Do you miss us? Absolutely. That is, despite the fact that countless scientists have cited this paper to continue experimenting with animals, despite the fact that none obtained desirable results, despite the fact that no drug achieved a small improvement in the disease, research has continued in this line of research. And no one was surprised in the slightest.
In the trial of the admired Carlota Saorsa, they also declared that Vivotecnia had changed a dog from one experiment to another as if they were playing Mr. Potato. In her own words: “Not only was there repeated mistreatment of animals, but also the results of the trials were manipulated to approve studies that later went on to a second phase of experimentation with human beings.”
Very mediocre results, with success rates between 4% and 6% at best. And all for what? To be able to continue appearing in the publications. It’s a loop. The publications only admit studies with animal experimentation because they have more citations and more references. And researchers earn prestige for their publication. More prestige who publish more. And therefore the prestige goes to those who experiment on animals.
The only way to break this paradigm is by banning animal experimentation. It is no longer important whether it has been useful or not. The reality is that there are already alternatives for many experiments and animals are still used.
The 2019 report on EU animal uses has recently come out. The numbers are still outrageous. Since 2015 it has increased by almost a million animals. How can they continue to maintain that the regulations are very strict and that fewer and fewer animals are used? One only has to look at the data to undo this argument. The European directive that was made in 2010 intended that animal experimentation be reduced until its abolition. This objective is not being met, 12 years have passed and there is no substantial change. In fact, according to information from Cruelty Free International, almost 800,000 “uses” have their alternative validated and approved and even so, experimentation on animals has continued.
Some experimenters argue that hundreds of millions of animals are dying horribly in labs because there’s a slim chance that it might, perhaps, help human health 30 years from now.
However, we have a 100% chance of ending animal suffering right now if we switched to research based on human biology methods, plus we would get better, more reliable and cheaper data, as many already validated alternatives have shown. and approved, which are also not mandatory to use instead of animal experimentation.
If we are really concerned about animals and/or people’s health, let us sign the European initiative so that a real plan is established by which this research method becomes history. Even the ban on experimentation for cosmetic purposes is being threatened. We must seriously oppose.
Let us also think of all that medicine could advance if we had research methods with better results.