Tag Archives: Cancer

Animal Rights Movement and Excessive Regulation “Delay Lifesaving Drugs”

Posted on by
Reply

Medical researchers told the European Breast Cancer Conference that animal rights attacks combined with excessive regulations governing clinical trials are delaying the development of life saving cancer treatments.

Dr. Michael Baum, who chaired the conference, said,

Women will die unnecessarily because of the delays these two threats cause.

. . .

Britain has led the world in reducing deaths from breast cancer because of the research and innovation we have in this country. That is being lost. We are already seeing delays in new drugs coming through and young researchers are deciding it’s not worth coming into the field because of all the restrctions.

As if animal rights attacks were not enough, in 1996 the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products imposed additional regulations on the conduct of clinical trials. Many medical researchers believe those regulations went too far in protecting the privacy of patients in clinical trials. According to Baum,

I accept that we need to protect patients and protec thtier privacy but these restrictions are nonsensical. There is a pently to pay for them and that pentalty is in peoiple’s lives.

Source:

Animal rights ‘delay lifesaving drugs’. Helen Rumbelow, The Times (UK), March 23, 2002.

Meat, Milk Contribute to Cancer — Or Do They?

Posted on by
Reply

A study published in the January 2002 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that people who ate diets high in red meat and/or milk had much higher rates of stomach and esophageal cancer than those who did not. Some animal rights groups and activists are trumpeting this as the latest evidence that meat is not good for you. The activists might want to read the fine print since the study actually reinforces common sense advice about a balanced diet as exemplified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s nutrition guidelines — guidelines which have been much derided by animal rights activists and groups.

The study by Honlei Chen examined the dietary patterns of white adult residents of eastern Nebraska. The study included 124 subjects whom had been diagnosed with stomach cancer, 124 who had been diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and 449 healthy controls. Researchers asked the subjects about their eating habits and they were then classified into groups such as “healthy,” “high meat,” “high milk,” etc.

Right off the bat there are a lot of limitations as to how generalizable the results of this study are due to its size and other related issues, but lets ignore those objections. What did the study actually find?

The result that made headlines was that people who ate “high meat” diets had 3.6 times the risk of esophageal cancer and twice the risk of stomach cancer compared to those eating a “healthy” diet, while those who had “high milk” diets had a 2-fold risk of both esophageal and stomach cancers compared to the “healthy” diet group.

The first thing to note is that the “healthy” eating groups were those who followed existing USDA dietary guidelines — they ate about five servings of fruit and vegetables, lots of servings of grains, bread and pasta, and only 2-3 servings of meat daily. These are the same guidelines, of course, which groups like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine have attacked as dangerous and racist (for their inclusion of milk).

Second, as with similar studies, what the study really seemed to track is not meat eating per se, but rather calorie consumption and lack of fruits and vegetables. The group designated as “healthy” consumed the fewest calories which should not be surprising given that someone who eats a lot of meat and/or drinks a lot of milk is very likely to be consuming a lot of calories (it would have been interesting to know about the weight distribution of the individuals in the various groups).

Similarly, recent studies have suggested that consumption of fruits and vegetables may play a role in reducing cancer risk, so people who consume lots of calories and get those calories mainly from meat without adequate fruits and vegetables may be increasing their risk of cancer due to not eating fruits and vegetables rather than from eating meat.

The upshot is that this is the latest study which simply reaffirms commonsense dietary advice. People need not adopt a strict vegan or vegetarian to reduce their risk of cancer and other diseases, but they do need to eat sensibly, consuming lots of fruits and vegetables and eating meat in moderation.

Source:

New research links meat with cancer. Reuters, December 20, 2001.

Diets high in red meat linked to stomach and esophageal cancers. Press Release, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 14, 2001.

Milk Consumption Prevents Breast Cancer!

Posted on by
Reply

Okay, the headline was a bit deceptive since milk consumption probably won’t reduce your risk of breast cancer, but that’s exactly the sort of conclusion I’d draw from a new study if I were as careless about treating dietary studies as many animal rights activists are.

Researchers in Norway studied 48,844 women in an attempt to measure the relationship between childhood and adult milk consumption and breast cancer incidence. Researchers obtained information about the women’s milk consumption in 1991-92, and then followed up 6 years later by obtaining information about breast cancer incidence among the study group.

Childhood milk consumption was slightly negatively associated with breast cancer among women 34-39 but not for women 40-49. Adult milk consumption had a large negative relationship, with women who drank 3 glasses of milk per day have a roughly 40 percent lower risk of breast cancer than women who did not drink milk (this result persisted even after controlling for age, reproductive and hormonal factors, body mass index, education, physical activity and alcohol consumption).

Should young adult women start consuming milk to prevent breast cancer? Probably not, for much the same reason that women shouldn’t abandon drinking milk if the study had found a 40 percent increased risk. These are interesting findings, but even with such a large study, this is still an awfully small association to warrant altering one’s lifestyle over.

Not to mention that, like most dietary studies, the Norway researchers relied completely on self-reporting of milk. Its questionable whether or not people can accurately report how much milk they consumed (in fact, studies of self-reporting find people often make gross errors in reporting contemporary behavior, much less behavior that occurred years and decades ago).

But there is still one conclusion that is probably warranted from the various studies of milk consumption and cancer. None of these studies shows the sort of increased risk of cancer from milk drinking that would be required to establish a causal connection between the two. Whatever else one can say about milk, there seems to be a death of evidence linking milk drinking to cancer, despite what animal rights activists would like you to belive.

Source:

Childhood and adult milk consumption and risk of premenopausal breast cancer in a cohort of 48,844 women – the Norwegian women and cancer study. International Journal of Cancer, Volume 93, Issue 6, 2001.

Cancer Drugs and Animal Testing Alternatives

Posted on by
Reply

The British National Institute for Clinical Excellence recently issued guidelines for a combination chemotherapy regimen to treat lung Cancer, and also recommend that patients who don’t respond well to other forms of chemotherapy be administered docetaxel, which is marketed under the brand name Taxotere. Taxotere is interesting because some animal rights groups hold it up as a model of what can be accomplished with human cell cultures rather than animal models, but such claims tend to omit some important facts.

Take a look at the Australian web site, AnimalLiberation.Org.Au. Like most animal rights sites, it maintains that testing drugs with animal models is cruel and ineffective: “Apart from being cruel to animals, this approach is also not effective. Different species respond in different ways to drugs.”

It gives several examples of how cell cultures have led to breakthroughs in cancer research, including Taxotere: “…breast cancers removed during operations were tested with 4 different drugs to find the most effective. The drug Taxotere most effectively killed cancer cells.”

Ironically, however, research on Taxotere demonstrates the problem with claims that animals and humans are too different. After Taxotere was shown to kill breast cancer cells in vitro, numerous follow-up studies were conducted to see if the drug could destroy a breast cancer tumor in a whole organism — specifically in Mice. Sure enough, the drug performed very well in such models, and numerous animal testing has been done with combining Taxotere and other drugs to try to find a cure for breast cancer (some with very promising results).

Source:

Lung cancer drugs approved. The BBC, June 12, 2001.

How PCRM Distorts Medical Research

Posted on by
Reply

A Tennessee newspaper recently provide an excellent example of how the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine distorts genuine medical research. Notice the difference between the reporter’s accurate summary of a recent study about dairy products and prostate cancer, and Neal Barnard’s snap judgement,

A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health raised the possibility
that consuming lots of dairy products could modestly increase the risk of
prostate cancer. The study stressed the case was far from settled and
recommended further study of calcium’s effects on health.

“Dairy products cause hormonal changes in a man’s body that increase the risk
of prostate cancer,” said [Neal] Barnard, a psychiatrist and nutrition researcher
with Georgetown University.

For the activists, any study which finds a correlation for something they agree with becomes instant proof that they are right, while studies that find correlations which the activists don’t agree with (such as those finding some advantages for eating fish) are either ignored or dismissed out of hand.

Source:

Group Targets Mississippi Because Of High Prostate Cancer Death Rates. The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tennessee), June 13, 2001.

Surge in Cancer Drugs Demonstrates Importance of Basic Research

Posted on by
Reply

Many animal rights activists have an extremely simplified view of animal research which seems derived largely from pop culture depictions of research. Do a few experiments, find a cure, move on. If experiments don’t lead immediately to cures or treatments, many animal rights activists conclude, they must be unnecessary and cruel. The recent surge in cancer drug testing, however, illustrates how progress really occurs in treating diseases.

Over the last few decades, billions of dollars has been poured into Cancer research — much of it for expensive animal tests of one treatment or another. As animal rights activists are happy to point out, all that money and all of those dead animals have yet to produce a cure. A typical example of this view is a fact sheet published by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Cancer: Why We’re Losing the “War”.

But the bottom line is that medical research into something like cancer is going to take a lot of time to see results. The last 30 years have seen an amazing growth in the understanding of cancer, much of it due to animal tests. As the Boston Globe recently reported, all that research is finally starting to come to some fruition. Today there are more than 400 different drug compounds in various stages human clinical trials to test their efficacy at treating cancer.

One of the interesting new technologies mentioned by the Boston Globe are monoclonal antibodies, which it notes are antibodies produced in the lab designed to seek out and destroy cancer cells. Animal rights activists are very much in favor of monoclonal antibodies because there is a distinct possibility that any ultimate cancer treatment based on them could be made without using animals. But the bottom line is that, contrary to PETA’s propaganda, animal experiments and research played a fundamental role in the development of monoclonal antibodies. It’s a technology that wouldn’t exist without animal research.

None of this, of course, means that a cure for cancer is going to be announced next week. But progress is being made thanks to animal research, and it is outrageous for groups like PETA to continue claiming otherwise.

Source:

Cancer drugs surge in pipeline. Naomi Aoki, Boston Globe, April 11, 2001.

Attack on University of Minnesota Worst Lab Attack in Recent Years

Posted on by
Reply

On April 5, the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for a raid on a University of Minnesota lab
that released over 100 animals and vandalized the lab doing more than
$2 million in damage.

The lab was conducting experiments
with rats, pigeons, salamanders and mice on a variety of research projects
including efforts to better understand cancer and Parkinson’s disease.
Dr. Walter Low, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, said the
raid set back studies being conducted on Alzheimer’s by at least two years
(the University of Minnesota is well known for developing a strain of
mice that mimic the traits often found in Alzheimer’s patients.)

Along with freeing the lab
animals, the ALF operatives smashed computers, wrecked microscopes and
photocopiers and even destroyed human tissue that were part of a research
program to find a vaccine to attack brain tumors. As Low pointed out,
this is rather ironic since the animal rights activists insist tissue
cultures should be used to replace animals in medical research.

Several people in the Minnesota
area, including a cancer patient, are offering a reward of $10,000 for
information leading to the capture and conviction of the perpetrators.

The reaction from animal rights
groups was predictable. Lisa Lange of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
was quoted in New Scientist as saying, “We do things in a very different
way, but I understand their frustration. The real crime is that millions
of animals are being tortured and killed.”

On the other hand Freeman Wicklund, executive director of the nonprofit Animal Liberation League,
told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that such actions hurt the animal rights
cause. “We hope everybody realizes that the visible minority within
the animal-rights community doesn’t represent the broader movement,” Wicklund said. “A
lot of people who care about animals are upset about the actions.”

Although it is nice to see
Wicklund oppose such raids, he is ignoring reality when he implies
his view is in the majority. In fact he has been widely denounced by animal
rights activists for his stance against terrorist activities.

Sources:

Animal activists suspected in lab damage. Jim Adams, Minnesota Star Tribune, April 6, 1999.

Activists up the ante. Kurt Kleiner, New Scientist, April 17, 1999.

Research labs vandalized, 75 animals taken. Associated Press, April 6, 1999.

NC A.L.F. Liberates 116 from Vivisection Lab. No Compromise, Press Release, Arpil 9, 1999.

Doctor refutes claim animal experiments have brought us closer to cure for Alzheimer’s disease, call such claims “exploitative” of stricken families. New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Press Release, April 9, 1999.

Veternarian charges U of M experimenters exaggerated claims of research progress. In Defense of Animals, Press Release, April 9, 1999.

ALF tactics condemned. Letter to the editor, Minnesota Daily, April 9, 1999.

More lost U lab animals found in Woodbury field. Jim Adams, Minnesota Star Tribune, April 9, 1999.

Minn. research labs vandalized. Associated Press, April 6, 1999.

Animal Liberation Front claims responsibility for liberation of 116 animals from University of Minnesota, while destroying violent research. North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, Press Release, April 5, 1999.

A.L.F. Raids University of Minnesota Animal Lab. North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, Press Release, April 5, 1999.

Vigil for lab animals. Animal Liberation Front, Press Release, April 7, 1999.

Study Suggests No Link Between Dietary Fat and Breast Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

One of the shibboleths of the
animal rights movement is that eating meat is unhealthy and contributes
to diseases such as cancer. But a new report from the ongoing Nurses’
Health Study suggests at least some of those claims may not prove to be
true.

Researchers compared the diet
of women in the study who didn’t have breast cancer with the almost 3,000
women in the study who did have breast cancer. What they found was surprising
– there was no association between consumption of fat and breast cancer.
In addition, researchers found that women who ate large proportions of animal
fat were at no greater risk of breast cancer than those who didn’t.

As the researchers summed
up their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
“Our research indicates it’s highly unlikely that women who consume
a low-fat diet are protected against breast cancer. Equally it appears
a high-fat diet also poses no increased risk for the disease.”

There are some limits to study,
though. It only looked at a 14-year time period, and the results of low
fat diets may require longer than 14 years to show any decreased risk.
In addition, the study didn’t look at women with extremely low fat intakes
of 10 percent or less of total calories.

There is one bright spot for
animal rights activists in the study, though – it does contradict results
of animal studies which found associations between high fat diets and
cancer.

Source:

No link between dietary fat and breast cancer, study shows. Brenda Coleman, Associated Press, March 9, 1999.

Tumor-destroying virus tested in mice

Posted on by
Reply

A reovirus that normally causes mild respiratory
infections in human beings has been found to be an effective killer of
cancerous tumors in mice.

According to a report in Science,
the reovirus uses the Ras pathway in the cells of mice, which normally
regulates cell growth. It is the Ras pathway that is activated in about
75 percent of human cancers.

Other viruses have been found to destroy tumors,
but this is the first virus that uses the Ras pathway. “This is the
pathway everyone wants to target,” said Peter Forsyth, an oncologist
at the University of Calgary. “The treatment is very effective.”

The main advantage of the reovirus is that
it doesn’t seem to affect noncancerous cells. Clinical trials in human
beings are years away, however.

Dredging data to "prove" white meat consumption contributes to cancer

Posted on by
Reply

The American Journal of Epidemiology
recently published a study that animal rights and vegan/vegetarian activists
are sure to jump on – Dr. Pramil Singh and Dr. Gary Fraser of the
Center for Health Research at Loma Linda University in California claim
their study of 34,000 Seventh Day Adventists shows that white meat consumption
increases the risk of colon cancer.

Should you give up or cut back
on white meat? Certainly not based on this study, which arrives at its
results by shameless data dredging.

What’s data dredging? Suppose
I wanted to prove that vegetarians who attend animal rights protests have
a higher rate of colon cancer than vegetarians who don’t. So I get
several thousand vegetarians to fill out questionnaires detailing how
often they attend such protests.

At first I’m sorely disappointed
by the results – vegetarians who attend animal rights protests don’t
seem to get colon cancer any more often than those who stay away from
such protests. But that’s not the result I’m looking for, so
I need to get fancy with the data. I start looking at the results from
every possible angle and find an interesting trend.

While there is no general increase
in colon cancer from attending animal rights protests, I do find an oddity
that activists who regularly read Humane Society of the United States propaganda but only occasionally attend People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-sponsored protests have lower rates of colon cancer than those
who rarely read HSUS propaganda but regularly attend PETA protests.

And so I publish my results –
I have proven that attending PETA protests increases the risk of colon
cancer.

Convinced?

This is the sort of methodology
Singh and Fraser use. Their study, in fact, found there was no statistically significant association between read meat consumption and
colon cancer and white meat consumption and colon cancer. But that didn’t
produce the result they wanted, so they went searching for associations
in subgroups of data and found a couple.

Specifically the subgroup in their
study who reported they ate red meat more than once a week but ate white
meat only occasionally had a 90 percent increased risk of colon cancer,
while those who consumed white meat more than once per week but only occasionally
eat read meat had a 229 percent increased risk of colon cancer.

Source:

Meat consumption and colon cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, October 15, 1998.

Study finds chicken cauces cancer too. Reuters, October, 1998.