STANFORD, Calif. -The fabled laboratory mouse – from which we have learned so much about how the immune system works – can teach us only so much about how we humans get sick and what to do about it, says a leading researcher at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

The time has come for immunologists to start weaning themselves from experimental rodents and to embark on a bold, industrial-scale assault on the causes and treatment of specifically human disease, writes immunologist Mark Davis, PhD, in an essay to be published Dec. 19 in Immunity. Davis, director of the Stanford Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection, proposes that the current mouse-centered, small-laboratory approach be supplemented by a broad, industrial-scale “systems biology” approach akin to the one that unraveled the human genome.

“We seem to be in a state of denial, where there is so much invested in the mouse model that it seems almost unthinkable to look elsewhere,” Davis, the Burton and Marion Avery Family Professor and professor of microbiology and immunology, writes in the essay.

Over the past several decades, the little mouse has proven immensely helpful in generating a fundamental understanding of how the mammalian immune system works, Davis said in an interview. “The mouse has been incredibly valuable,” he added. “That’s part of the problem.”

Experimental manipulations that are commonplace with lab mice, such as genetically engineering them to express a foreign protein or to be deficient in the expression of one of their own, would be unthinkable in a human. Because experimental mice can be used to get quick answers, Davis argues, researchers look to the mouse to tell them everything. “In humans it often takes years to find out anything. There are a lot more regulatory, financial and ethical hurdles,” he said.

But when it comes to adapting therapeutic interventions that seem to cure all kinds of infectious disease, cancers and autoimmune conditions in mice for use in human beings, the record is not so good. The vast majority of clinical trials designed to test these interventions in people end in failure.

“Mice are lousy models for clinical studies,” Davis asserts in his essay.

There are probably some good reasons for this, said Davis. For starters, mice are rodents, separated from humans by some 65 million years of evolutionary divergence from our common ancestor.

That’s not all. While it takes about 20 years for a person to reach sexual maturity, a mouse gets there in three months. The roughly 100 years during which the furry, diminutive animals have been domesticated and bred in labs are, therefore, the mouse equivalent of 8,000 human years, during which they have been inbred and kept relatively disease-free. They would never survive in the wild, said Davis.

Meanwhile, the past 8,000 years have seen humans crowded into cities, he said. “We’ve been selected by urbanization, with plagues such as the bubonic plague and smallpox that routinely killed huge numbers of people, and modern scourges like HIV and malaria that still infect and kill millions each year. Most humans are infected with six different herpes viruses, and who knows what else. And while we’re suffering away, getting colds and flu, the mice are living in the lap of luxury in miniature condominiums, with special filters on the cage tops to keep bad things out.” They’re in such pristine shape, Davis notes drily, that researchers have to induce facsimiles of human disease in them. These conditions may or may not accurately mirror ours.

“We can’t depend on the mouse for all the answers, because in some cases it’s not giving us the right answers,” Davis said. “But think about what we can do with people. People come to hospitals, get vaccinations, give blood and tissue samples for routine lab tests and clinical trials. We’re not learning nearly as much as we could from these samples. As with the recent history of human genetics, we could be much bolder.”

The Human Genome Project, which has radically accelerated the pace of human genetics, was conducted as a large industrial operation carried out mainly in a small number of large centers, including one at Stanford. In a spirited debate attending that project’s initial conception, many academics objected strenuously on the basis that doing the same thing over and over isn’t a good way to train students and researchers, said Davis. But, he added, “The Human Genome Project didn’t destroy the small lab. It complemented it.”

In his Immunity essay, Davis writes: “Although the small academic labs as we know and love them are great for innovation and out-of-the-box thinking, some problems in biology, particularly those that involve a great deal of repetitive assays and data collection, are much better suited to a larger-scale organization and execution. The data are both more uniform and considerably cheaper.”

Davis sees the need for a national or even international infrastructure to capture information from blood and tissue samples. A local template is Stanford’s Human Immune Monitoring Core, run by Davis’ colleague David Hirschberg. Affiliated investigators send human samples to this facility, where copious assays of cell types and immune secretions in blood and tissues extract data about experimental subjects’ immune status, in a relatively short time. “This information goes back to the principal investigators, but it also gets captured in a database we’re developing,” Davis said.

The creation of high-throughput assays that could quickly and cheaply measure vast numbers of immunologic variables (many of them first elucidated in the mouse) in a standardized fashion among very large groups of people – some in excellent health, others suffering from one or another disease – would greatly advance immunological discovery, said Davis.

“What if we could define the normal range for all these parameters, and then see how they’re changed by any of the over 100 infectious diseases, or 90-odd autoimmune disorders, or more than 120 inherited immune deficiencies that afflict us – or, for that matter, by aging or even vaccination? Maybe we could see something coming early on and start applying remedies to restore the normal balance and prevent the disease’s progression.”

Davis envisions routine clinical tests that, analogous to the serum lipid tests we take to learn our predisposition to cardiovascular disease, tell us what shape our immune system is in or what disease we’re starting to get.

“The game here is that we don’t know quite what we’re looking for yet,” he said. “But some of this information is going to be useful.”

###

Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions – Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center’s Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu.

Since President Richard Nixon signed the Conquest of Cancer Act in 1971, the “war on cancer” in the United States has become a series of losing battles. Through taxes, donations, and private funding, Americans have spent almost $200 billion on cancer research since 1971. However, more than 500,000 Americans die of cancer every year, a 73 percent increase in the death rate since the “war” began.(1)

Prevention Is Possible

Dr. John R. Seffrin, president of the International Union Against Cancer, said, “Cancer is potentially the most preventable and most curable of the major life-threatening diseases facing humankind.”(2) Both the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization estimate that at least 2 million lives could be saved by 2020-and 6.5 million lives by 2040-if “immediate action” is taken to prevent and treat cancer.(3)

Clinical studies have proved that smoking and consuming food that’s high in fat or animal protein are leading causes of cancer. The number one recommendation in the American Cancer Society’s “Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention” is to eat a diet “with an emphasis on plant sources.”(4) Researchers have found that vegetarians are between 25 and 50 percent less likely to suffer from cancer, even after taking smoking and other factors into account.(5)

Of Mice and Men

Millions of mice (referred to as “preclinical models”) have suffered and lost their lives to futile cancer research. According to Massachusetts Institute of Technology biology professor Robert Weinberg, “[I]t’s been well known for more than a decade, maybe two decades, that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings-actual human tumors inside patients-will respond. . . . [H]undreds of millions of dollars are being wasted every year by drug companies using these models.”(6) The New York Times reported that following preclinical tests on animals, only “one in 20 prospective cancer cures used in human tests reaches the market, the worst record of any medical category.”(7) Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute (which has an annual budget of more than $6 billion for cancer research), was quoted as saying, “The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.”(8,9)

Critical Differences

Those who profit from animal experimentation claim that animals are physiologically similar to humans-similar enough to persuade us to believe that what happens in a rat, mouse, dog, cat, or nonhuman primate will occur in humans.

Although most animal cancers arise in the bone, connective tissue, or muscle (sarcomas), most human cancers arise in living membranes (carcinomas). Furthermore, animals who are confined to small laboratory cages, repeatedly manipulated, and otherwise subjected to pain and stress make very poor “models” of human cancer patients. These animals may be given highly concentrated doses of substances that a human being would never be exposed to or heavily irradiated to form cancerous tumors, or they may have human tumors grafted to their bodies.

Animal experimenters want a disposable “research subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient, but their artificially created “animal models” can never fully reflect the human condition.

Technologies and Treatments

Much of the research conducted in the name of curing cancer misses the mark: What kills human cancer victims 90 percent of the time is metastasis-when aggressive cells spread to other areas of the body. According to Fortune magazine’s investigation of the National Cancer Institute’s grants since 1972, only an alarming 0.5 percent of study proposals were dedicated to research on metastasis.(10)

Alternatives to animal testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, such as 3-D in vitro models in which scientists grow actual human tumors surrounded by actual human tissue, allowing for controlled laboratory testing in an exact replica of in vivo human cancer. Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(11) Microdosing is another promising alternative: Human subjects are given a drug dose that is one-hundredth of what would be expected to have an actual effect on the body, but sensitive measuring equipment is able to monitor the metabolism of the drug and allow scientists to predict the dangers or benefits of a full dose.(12)

Of the three basic treatment methods available to people who are diagnosed with cancer today-surgical removal, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy-not one is guaranteed to be effective. If a cancer does go into remission following one of these treatments, there is no assurance that it will not reappear. Because radiation and chemotherapy treatments irradiate or poison normal tissues as well as cancerous ones, both can cause additional cancers and unbearable side effects. Animal testing has not helped these patients; if anything, it has held back progress in treatments.

What You Can Do

Take responsibility for your health and avoid carcinogens. Stay away from animal-based foods (meat, eggs, and dairy products), tobacco, excessive radiation, artificial food additives and colorings, and pesticides in order to lower your risk of getting cancer.

Encourage medical charities and research agencies to develop and use clinical, epidemiological, and other non-animal research methods. If you donate to medical charities, write, “Not to be used for animal studies,” on your check because some organizations–including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society, and countless others-use donations to fund experiments on animals. Compassionate, modern charities, such as the National Children’s Cancer Society, Cancer Care, and the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, know that non-animal methods are the best way to fight cancer. Visit HumaneSeal.org to find out which charities do and which do not fund research on animals.

References
1) Clifton Leaf, “The War on Cancer: Why We’re Losing the War on Cancer-and How to Win It,” Fortune 9 Mar. 2004.
2) International Union Against Cancer, “Concerted Global Action Is the Only Answer to Rising Cancer Deaths,” 3 Jun. 2003.
3) World Health Organization and International Union Against Cancer, Global Action Against Cancer 2005.
4) American Cancer Society, “Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: Facts and Figures, 2004,” 2004.
5) J. Chang-Claude et al., “Mortality Pattern of German Vegetarians After 11 Years of Follow-Up,” Epidemiology 3 (1992): 389-91.
6) Leaf.
7) Gardiner Harris, “New Drug Points Up Problems in Developing Cancer Cures,” The New York Times 21 Dec. 2005.
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, “The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research: A Plan and Budget Proposal for FY 2006,” National Cancer Institute, Oct. 2004: 54.
9) Jerome Burne, “Danger Mouse,” The Times [U.K.] 30 Jul. 2002.
10) Leaf.
11) Christopher Anderegg et al., “A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation,” Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2002.
12) Kerri Smith, “The Human Guinea Pigs,” The Times [U.K.] 17 Dec. 2005.

(NaturalNews) Millions of laboratory animals are yet used each year to test new drugs to be approved by the FDA for safety. While some labs have been discovered to provide horrific conditions for test animals, most follow the ‘Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals’ protocol. But have you ever thought about what happens to those test animals once the research is over? There is not an animal lover on the planet whose heart doesn’t break a little when shown photos or videos of laboratory test animals. It is gut-wrenching to know that these test animals have little to no quality of life. Once the testing is complete for that animal, what happens next is even more unimaginable. Animals used for laboratory testing, filled with drugs and test diseases, can end up in pet food.

According to the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, proper disposal of test animals is as follows: “Infectious animal carcasses can be incinerated on-site or collected by a licensed contractor.” In other words, used test animals would be cremated – if the laboratory has the expensive equipment to cremate test animals; or the ‘licensed contractor’ would be the area Rendering Facility, which provides the pet food industry with many ingredients. Many, many laboratories that use test animals are University based; struggling to make ends meet. It is unlikely that many University laboratories can afford cremation of test animals. Sadly, we must assume that most University lab test animals are rendered.

As example, the University of Illinois and Oklahoma State University both allow test animal carcasses to be rendered. The University of Illinois website mentions their renderer does not pick up dogs or cats. However, all other test animals, and the diseases and drugs in their bodies, are removed by local renderers whose end products sell to pet food manufacturers. Baylor University website states “non-hazardous carcass waste” is removed to the area landfill; however “all hazardous classified animal carcasses shall be disposed of through a contracted waste disposal vendor” – a renderer. Please take notice of the Baylor University waste protocol; non-hazardous carcass waste can be buried, but hazardous animal carcass waste is rendered. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/…

Imagine all of the waste test animals at all of the laboratories across the country, University or otherwise. Imagine all the test drugs not yet approved for use within these animal bodies. Many, many of those test animals and test drugs are rendered, along with other waste animal material (such as 4-D livestock – dead, diseased, dying, and disabled animals rejected for use in human food), and after the rendering process become ingredients in pet food.

Pet food ingredients that could possibly contain a rendered laboratory animal would be ‘animal fat’, ‘by-product meal’, ‘meat and bone meal’, ‘meat meal’ (not ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’ or any other specific named meat meal), and ‘Animal Digest’. The FDA has determined that the common pet food ingredient ‘Animal Fat’ to be most likely to contain a euthanizing drug, thus most likely to contain a euthanized animal. There is NO FDA information on exactly what type of euthanized animal could be in ‘animal fat’, nor what other drugs are in the ingredient (and in the other above listed pet food ingredients). There is NO FDA or CVM information on the health condition of animals used in these rendered pet food ingredients, nor the research data to know the health risk to pets. The FDA, despite Federal law against this, allows diseased animals and rendered laboratory animals to become pet food ingredients.

Sadly, there is no means for pet owners to know if any of these common pet food ingredients are certain to contain the remains of a test animal or drugs within that animal. Each ‘batch’ of rendered animal waste results in different contents of the end products; subject to what type of animals or animal waste is picked up and processed.

The rendering of laboratory test animals into pet food ingredients is simply unacceptable. Untested drugs, euthanasia drugs, and various species of test animals, all to possibly become part of a family pet’s food, is inexcusable. The carcasses of these test animals and the drugs and chemicals within them should never become rendered into pet food. Please look at the label of your pet’s food and treats for the ingredients ‘animal fat’, ‘by-product meal’, ‘meat and bone meal’, ‘meat meal’ (not ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’ or any other specific named meat meal), and ‘Animal Digest’; feeding your pet a food or treat with these ingredients could mean you are feeding the remains of a laboratory test animal and the drugs within that animal. Unfortunately, many Rx pet foods designed to treat a pet illness contain some of these ingredients. If your veterinarian has prescribed your pet a Rx diet, you must continue using that pet food unless the approval of another pet diet is obtained. The diet addressing an illness must be a top priority. Please consult your veterinarian before changing foods.

Wishing you and your pet the best,

Susan Thixton

About the author

Susan Thixton has an international pet people following providing dog and cat lovers a trusted source for pet food and pet food ingredient information. She’s been called courageous, perseverant, even “the Caped Crusader for Pets” for her 16 year study of pet food. Susan Thixton is the author of hundreds of pet industry articles and the 2006 released book Truth About Pet Food (currently being updated for a second edition). She developed and publishes the pet product consumer magazine Petsumer Report and is a frequent speaker and radio guest all over the U.S. and Canada with more than 70 appearances in the last 2 years.
If you are looking for straight forward pet food information that can have an almost immediate impact on your pet’s health – subscribe to the free newsletter, and subscribe to Petsumer Report to see reviews of close to 700 dog and cat foods and treats (adding 40+ each month). Susan Thixton’s ‘truth’ will help you find a safer, healthier dog or cat food that could add years to your pet’s life. http://www.TruthAboutPetFood.com

Reprinted from NaturalNews.