Animal research draws rally
Protesters say money rather than medical advances fuels research; backers disagree
By SCOTT WALDMAN, Staff writer
First published in print: Monday, May 24, 2010
The animals were among those used in medical research conducted at Albany Medical Center and their use in tests was protested by a group of animal rights activists. The group, called Adirondack Animal Rights, plans to stage monthly protests at the corner of New Scotland and Holland avenues until the hospital finds other methods of testing.
"I hope they stop and think about what's going on," said Jessica Ryle, the group's founder, as cars whizzed by and honked their horns.
Albany Medical College uses a variety of animals in tests that it claims are beneficial to science, according to its annual report with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Among the animals that experienced "pain or distress" in tests at the school in 2008 were 12 dogs, 13 rabbits, 38 pigs, two goats and 116 chinchillas, the report states.
Such testing is going on at every academic medical research facility across the country, Albany Med spokesman Greg McGarry said. He said the tests are absolutely imperative as long as "kids are dying of cancer" because that is how medical advances are discovered.
"We think that as long as there are these terrible diseases that afflict humans and animals, we have a lot to know from these animal studies," McGarry said. Read More
Yesterday I posted an article that talked about animal rights activists that are making these animals a higher priority in life than other people. Never should we allow our society get to the point where we would rather see children suffer than test possible life-saving drugs on animals. The best thing for these activists to do would be to refuse any medical treatment for themselves and their children if it’s been tested on animals. That way they could really prove their convictions. ~Troy
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Red Meat Doesn't Cause Cancer
Red Meat Carcinogenicity Examined
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)