As if more evidence were needed that 'science' and commerce have become so inextricably linked as to be dangerous and UNSCIENTIFIC, here's yet another banned drug, joining the long list of those that passed scientific scrutiny before being marketed, only to maim or kill in the name of medicine.

I am sick and tired of hearing the complaint that homeopathy is not evidence-based, when the current medical system allows such infringements of safety, liberty and decency.

Animal experiments (vivisection), laboratory vagaries, less than scrupulous methodology and greed may be factors that allow the marketing of dangerous (even deadly) chemicals under the guise of 'medicine'. I don't suppose the multi-billion profits could have anything at all to do with such things?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/arthritis+drug+withdrawn/1071257

http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-news/item.do?newsId=51178830380524

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/27092007/323/novartis-painkiller-prexige-rejected-fda-continues-talks-regulator.html

http://www.newstin.co.uk/sim/uk/20077386/en-004-003958414

http://www.pharmaceutical-int.com/news/2007/08/21/new-zealand-follows-australia-in-banning-arthritis-drug.asp

Prexige has caused serious liver problems and possibly killed several patients. Yet, in the UK, those already on the medicine have been told to 'keep taking the tablets' until their medication has been reviewed by their doctor! That makes sense?

Watch out for Charity Christmas Cards that support the scientifically useless and inhumane practice of animal experiments (vivisection). We can unwittingly pour money into the bottomless pit of pseudoscience and animal suffering, unless we have access to the facts.

Don't unwittingly support BAD SCIENCE!

Don't unwittingly support BAD WELFARE!

For a list of UK charities that perform experiments on animals or fund same and those that don't, visit:

http://www.peta.org.uk/cmp/viv-charlist.asp

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/281/

PETA publish the following list, information and advice on their website:

"What types of charities are on the “DO TEST” list? Health charities that conduct or fund experiments on animals are included on the “DO TEST” list. These organisations deal with human health issues ranging from lung cancer to drug addiction to blindness. While some do have relevant and effective projects that help improve lives, all of them drain money away from these projects and into cruel experiments on animals. They starve, cripple, burn, poison and slice open animals to study human diseases and disabilities. Such experiments have no practical benefit to anyone. They are unnecessary, unreliable and sometimes dangerously misleading. “Enormous variations exist among rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs and human beings, and meaningful scientific conclusions cannot be drawn about one species by studying another,” says Dr Neal Barnard, “Non-animal methods provide a more accurate method of testing and can be interpreted more objectively.”

What can be done to stop charities from experimenting on animals?
Many charities know that we can improve treatments through modern, non-animal methods, and they fund only non-animal research, leading to real progress in the prevention and treatment of disease. The next time you receive a donation request from a health charity, ask if it funds animal tests. Let charities know that you only give to organisations that alleviate suffering, not contribute to it.

Please note that most colleges and universities have laboratories that conduct animal experiments for health and other purposes. If you would like to know whether a specific school has an animal laboratory, please contact PETA. For information on the experiments being conducted and to voice your opinion, please contact the school. The following health charities and service organisations DO conduct or fund animal experiments.

Researchers at the Oregon Health & Science University have created for the first time cloned embryos of monkeys from which they extracted stem cells. Despite the apparent success, the technique has a very high rate of failure: of 304 eggs from 14 rhesus macaque monkeys, only two stem cell lines resulted.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Scientists_Have_Created_First_Primate_Cloned_Embryos_10647.html

It is only a matter of time until we are routinely doing this with human embryos. The technique has already been demonstrated. Does no one feel fear?

It appears, thank goodness, that someone does and that there are some ethical and sensible individuals out there, in policy-making:

"A global ban on cloning humans must be introduced "urgently" to prevent rogue scientists creating cloned babies, a United Nations report warns.

The report, published by law experts at the UN University's Institute of Advanced Studies, which advises the organisation, warns that it is just a matter of time before a human is cloned.

The authors say that although 50 countries have legislation that outlaws human reproductive cloning, another 140 members of the UN have no such laws, providing loopholes for unscrupulous scientists."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/11/sciclone111.xml

As usual, all this would appear to have more to do with money and kudos than with medical advances.

File On 4 has discovered thousands of studies have been invalidated.

It found some scientists have failed to carry out simple and inexpensive checks to ensure they are working with the right forms of human tumour cells.

Cancer Research UK said it used robust procedures to check the cell-lines used in research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7098882.stm

Of course Cancer Research says it uses 'robust procedures'. Not robust enough, apparently.

Cancer research benefactors may be justifiably extremely angry - however, they can take consolation in the assurance that even more millions are squandered and wasted on useless animal-based research (vivisection) by Cancer Research and others.

This 'science' is the same whose results and papers we are supposed to revere and which is used as a benchmark by which to find homeopathy wanting in effectiveness. The more you look, the more cracks appear in the facade.