Staff maim lab mice with ballpoints
Thousands of animals being used to test a wrinkle-erasing rival to Botox are facing cruel and agonising experiments at a Home Office-approved laboratory, an undercover investigation has found.
Secret footage of the tests on Dysport, a drug used to erase frown lines in cosmetic surgery clinics, shows laboratory staff accidentally breaking the backs of mice when trying to kill them with ballpoint pens. The pens were then used to fill out their death records.
The film, obtained using a hidden camera inside Wickham Laboratories, a long-established facility in Hampshire that tests drugs for pharmaceutical companies, also shows rabbits being incompetently injected with other drugs.
Staff are filmed botching injections and swearing at struggling rabbits, which are immobilised in “stocks” for up to eight hours in experiments that test whether drugs cause fevers.
Many of the rabbit tests, although licensed by the government, are not required under international pharmaceutical testing standards. The Home Office itself boasts about how these tests can be replaced by “a new technique using human blood cells instead of rabbits”.
The footage, shot by an investigator from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, has led the government to launch an inquiry. A Home Office spokesman said: “We take these allegations seriously and are taking urgent steps to look into them further. We authorise animal research only when it can be justified.
“We expect and require the highest standards, and will thoroughly examine any evidence that suggests these standards are not being met.”
The filming, compiled over a period of eight months, included a sequence in which a member of staff made a number of attempts to inject a rabbit.
She is recorded calling the animal “a little shit” and “a disgrace”. She warned the rabbit that it could end up with “ear-rings” — a reference to punctures in its ear from failed attempts at injections. Another member of staff is recorded remarking that blood is coming out of the rabbit’s ear.
William Cartmell, the official vet charged with overseeing the welfare of the animals used for testing at Wickham, is also a founder and a big shareholder in the company.
Last night he denied that this represented a potential conflict of interest and said he was “a professional” .
Lab records seen by the BUAV investigator show that Cartmell’s weekly inspections sometimes took 15 minutes, with one visit in March this year lasting only eight minutes. He argued this was adequate to check that the animals were being treated well and not suffering.
“The health status of the animals is at such a high level that the length of time involved is more than adequate,” he said. “The animals are under constant care unlike pet animals and farm animals.”
Dysport, which is made from botulinum toxin, is licensed in Britain for medical use to treat conditions such as involuntary eye muscle contractions, facial twitches and muscle spasms.
However, it is also used legitimately “off-label” as an alternative to Botox for cosmetic treatments to eliminate frown lines and wrinkles.
Each batch has to be tested by law to ensure that it is safe and of the correct potency. Lab records seen by the investigator show that 41,088 mice were used in Dysport tests at Wickham between January and June this year.
The method used — lethal dose 50 (LD50) — is classed as a “very severe” test by the government. Mice are injected with the toxin. They suffer progressive paralysis and the film shows them lurching from side to side as they become unable to walk properly. Some appear to suffer severe breathing difficulties before dying.
Government regulations require suffering animals to be put out of their misery. Wickham Laboratories’ records indicate that far more mice died during the tests than were killed humanely.
Official guidelines allow mice to have their necks broken to ensure a quick death, and pens are often used to do this. But film shot at Wickham shows that some were left writhing after their backs were mistakenly broken by staff.
Alternatives to the LD50 test have been developed and are being used at other laboratories in Britain.
The official government laboratory, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, uses non-lethal methods to test Dysport. Ten years ago it developed a test of the toxin using a test tube. It also uses a far less severe test on mice that does not kill them.
The BUAV, which has eight months of footage from Wickham, said the treatment of many animals was “appalling”.
Sarah Kite, BUAV’s special projects director, said: “The fact that extremely sick mice end up in the hands of incompetent staff, to have their backs broken and suffer such an agonising death is totally sickening.
“Our shocking findings show that crude, archaic and extremely cruel animal tests are still allowed in the UK even when an alternative test exists and animal testing is not required by official bodies.”
The revelations about the testing at Wickham have shocked dermatologists who use Dysport. Nick Lowe, who is known as Dr Botox and has conducted research into the toxin, said he was surprised that the LD50 test was still being used.
Lowe, whose clients at his London clinic include Anne Robinson, the television presenter, said he was “appalled” to hear that animals were being allowed to suffer in tests on the drug.
“I would like to know that all the drugs I prescribe for patients are evaluated in ethical ways. With my own range of skin-care products we do absolutely no animal testing. I am not in favour of that type of testing at all. I want the highest ethical standards,” he said.
Ipsen Biopharm, which manufactures Dysport, said it took the “allegations very seriously” and would be following them up with Wickham. “Animal welfare is of primary importance to Ipsen, and the approval of Wickham by the Home Office has been critical in Ipsen’s decision to work with this company,” said a spokesman.
“In no way would I, or any member of Ipsen staff, condone practices outside the approved procedures laid down for this type of test.”
Ipsen said that it used the LD50 test because it was required to but was “striving to replace the LD50 test as soon as suitable alternatives have been approved by worldwide regulatory authorities”.
Chris Bishop, the technical director of Wickham Laboratories, said he could not comment on the footage but would seek opportunities to improve lab practice. He said the company’s “animal technicians undergo extensive training programmes”.
“We have a culture of seeking continuous improvement and if there are observations which indicate such opportunities, we shall gladly embrace them, ” he said.
The company added: “The welfare and care of our research animals is paramount.”
Test rules
- The Home Office’s policy is to license animal experiments only “when there is no alternative research technique”.
- Ministers say they will not license tests which “cause severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated” or where the animal’s death is the “end point”.
- The government has banned the testing of cosmetics, such as make-up and face creams, on animals.
- Tests on animals rose to 3.7m procedures in 2008, up 450,000 on the previous year.
- Mice and rats are the most commonly used animals in tests. The government also allows dogs, cats, horses and primates. Last year 3,354 primates and 4,271 dogs were used in tests in UK labs.
- Labs have a legal duty to keep animal suffering to a minimum. There are strict standards for humane killing, animal care, housing and health.
-------------------------------------------------
A quoi servent les tortures avec du Botox?
Je copie colle de ce blog:
http://infos.petition.over-blog.com/article-35327918.html
Jeudi 27 août 2009
Des souris shootées au Botox pour rester belles
Suite au « coup de gueule » de Brigitte Bardot concernant les tests de toxine botulique effectués par l’industrie cosmétique sur des souris de laboratoire, le Dr André Ménache, directeur du collectif Antidote, rend la société Ipsen particulièrement responsable de la souffrance infligée aux animaux.
Les injections de Botox, nom commercial de la toxine botulique, sur des souris sont-ils vraiment nécessaires pour obtenir un produit garantissant tous les standards de sécurité aux femmes qui y ont recours ? « Vous devez tout de même être au courant du fait que des scientifiques britanniques de l’Institut National des Standards et des Contrôles Biologiques (NIBSC) ont mis au point une procédure qui n’utilise pas d’animaux pour vérifier l’efficacité des lots de doses de ce produit », écrit le Dr André Ménache, directeur du collectif Antidote au laboratoire Ipsen.
Ipsen est un prolongement des Laboratoires Beaufour, laboratoire pharmaceutique français créé à Dreux en 1929 par le docteur Henri Beaufour. La stratégie de développement du groupe repose sur une complémentarité entre les produits des domaines thérapeutiques ciblés, moteurs de sa croissance, et les produits de médecine générale qui contribuent notamment au financement de sa recherche. Ipsen s’engage à chercher à « réduire l’utilisation des animaux pour tester les toxines dès que possible », un engagement qui paraît de pure forme.
Dans la lettre qu’il adresse au laboratoire, le Dr André Ménache précise que « D’ailleurs, vous ne serez pas la première société pharmaceutique à utiliser une telle solution ». Il prend comme exemple les entreprises Novartis en Suisse et Baxter aux États-Unis, qui « ont largement remplacé les lapins pour les tests de pyrogénicité (fièvre) en s’appuyant sur une méthode sans animaux (le test d’activation des monocytes — MAT) ». De plus, il met en doute la volonté affichée de la société Ipsen de s’affranchir de la souffrance animale, et note que « si cette méthode n’a été validée par l’Union européenne qu’en 2006, ces deux sociétés l’utilisent déjà depuis 2004 ».
« Il est donc pour le moins étrange que votre Déclaration susmentionnée concernant les tests de la toxine botulique s’appuie sur un article qui date de presque quatre ans vu les progrès scientifiques réalisés depuis et les possibilités de validation actuelles », conclut le scientifique. La fondation Brigitte Bardot et Antidote rappellent que 5.000 souris de laboratoire ont été sacrifiées sur l’autel de l’éternelle jeunesse que le Botox est censé apporter aux personnes qui l’utilisent, mais surtout pour permettre à l’industrie cosmétique d’éviter trop de frais en recherches. « Une faille juridique fait que ce produit n’est pas concerné par l’interdiction de tester des produits cosmétiques sur des animaux dans la mesure où le Botox a été développé initialement en tant que médicament », lit-on sur le site Internet « Bronzez sans Cruauté ».
Les tests de validation du Botox pratiqués sur ces animaux sont-ils vraiment nécessaires ? Sachant que « chaque lot d’injections de Botox nécessite la mort de 500 souris qui ont subi une lente agonie, de trois jours en général, le temps pour les muscles respiratoires de se paralyser ». Non, estiment ces défenseurs de la cause animale, citant le Dr Dorothea Sesardic, une scientifique qui a contribué au développement de la méthode sans animaux il y a 10 ans : « Ipsen devra rapidement céder sous la pression des consommateurs et adopter une méthode de test n’impliquant pas d’animaux si les personnes qui utilisent du Botox commencent à protester ».
Dans la mesure où il existe une méthode alternative pour tester ces produits, « Il ne s’agit pas de renoncer à des soins cosmétiques mais juste d’allier beauté et compassion et d’épargner d’horribles souffrances à des animaux ». Pour autant, les souffrances animales pourraient faire réfléchir les femmes qui ont recours à la toxine botulique pour conserver l’apparence d’une éternelle jeunesse. Le Botox, s’il arrive à faire illusion, est-il absolument sans danger pour la santé ?
/image%2F1100622%2F20140715%2Fob_21efa8_moi-19-4-12.jpg)
/image%2F1100622%2F20240222%2Fob_db8c1b_1-20171010155132.jpg "Un palestinien après s'etre informé a compris qu'on l'avait trompé. 7/10")
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog-kiwi.com%2Ft%2Fdelicate%2Fimages%2Fheader%2Fheader.jpg "Nakba ou fantasme de catastrophe?")
/image%2F1100622%2F20240217%2Fob_5a0b8f_djihad.jpeg "Attention, le djhad islamique du Hamas payé par l'Iran n'est pas une guerre de décolonisation mais de colonisation.")
/https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.wixstatic.com%2Fmedia%2F3ab451_48facc6c34bd4a67bf40e431da55914f~mv2.jpg%2Fv1%2Ffit%2Fw_2500%2Ch_1330%2Cal_c%2F3ab451_48facc6c34bd4a67bf40e431da55914f~mv2.jpg "Pourquoi l'antisemitisme? La haine meurtriere du 7/10/23.")
/https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F3eFOhcJHnVE%2Fhqdefault.jpg "Jean Allouch dcd le16/9/23 .L'analyse n'est ni confidence ni confession.Mais c'est parfois un râtage!")
/image%2F1100622%2F20231211%2Fob_d5090f_appid-21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7.8 "Israel vivra? La \"Main tendue aux freres(arabes)\" a accouché d'un monstre. Pourquoi l'antisemitisme.")
/image%2F1100622%2F20240118%2Fob_f1d08d_israel.jpeg "Un peu de ce qu'il faut savoir avant de juger Israel.")
/image%2F1100622%2F20230720%2Fob_2f1fbc_marchand-de-calantica.jpeg "UNE RECETTE DE CALENTICA d'Oran,VEGAN D'ORIGINE. Bon comme là bas, dis!")
/image%2F1100622%2F20221224%2Fob_409d04_mon-miou.jpeg "A MiouMiou que je n'ai pas (encore, déjà, trop vite) fait euthanasier,")
/https%3A%2F%2Fnocorrida.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F10%2Foreille-1024x661.jpg "Corridas: la queue et les oreilles coupés alors qu'ils sont vivants! NON à l'alinea 7!")
/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeanmarcmorandini.com%2Fimages%2Ficon_redface.gif)
Là, on peut dire que vous y aller fort avec les petits nenfants en devanture! Votre faux-bon coeur m'écœure car il est le mal déguisé en bien, définition de la perversion. Pierre Bergé à raison, sauf que je ne donnerai pas au Sidaction pour les même raisons: la torture.
/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-activist.com%2Fea-campaign%2Faction.retrievefile.do%3Fea_fileid%3D5293)
/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-activist.com%2Fea-campaign%2Faction.retrievefile.do%3Fea_fileid%3D5292)
/http%3A%2F%2F53.img.v4.skyrock.net%2F530%2Fcathykaczka%2Fpics%2F605561009.jpg)
/http%3A%2F%2Fperseides.hautetfort.com%2Fmedia%2F00%2F00%2F962619096.JPG)
BB. Ma Fondation a cofinancé un test cellulaire, réalisé sur cellules humaines, qui prédit à 82 % les effets toxiques sur l'espèce humaine, contre 65 % lorsque la souris est prise pour « modèle » et 61 % lorsqu'il s'agit du rat./http%3A%2F%2Fmemorix.sdv.fr%2F5%2Fwww.ladepeche.fr%2Finfoslocales%2Feco_articles%2Fhightech-sciences%2F1780641346%2Fx32%2FSDV_LDM%2Fdefault%2Fempty.gif%2F35326662626132363461356132663430){kind=spacer}
A