Percorso
Banner_no_viv
Banners
Gogodigital Paypal Donation
AcyMailing Module
Cit. V. Zanetti
RIASSUNTO DELLA CONFERENZA DEL CODACONS - VACCINI
In sostanza AIFA evidenzia, negli anni 2014, 2015, 2016:
- un totale di 21.658 reazioni avverse (8182, 7892, 5584)
- di cui 3.351 solo da esavalente (infanrix hexa) (1857, 992, 702)
- di cui 454 gravi (danni neurologici)
- di cui 5 decessi (neonati prematuri vaccinati a 2 mesi e mezzo/3 con infanrix e prevnar, due dei quali anche rotavirus) due in piemonte, 1 in lombardia, 1 in sicilia, 1 basilicata.
dal 2005 al 2015 + 40% aumento di bambini con deficit del neurosviluppo in italia
alluminio contenuto nei vaccini è neurotossico e facendo più vaccini insieme ravvicinati si supera la soglia facilmente (i 5 morti hanno subito vaccini in simultanea)
Per ottenere i dati dall'AIFA il CODACONS ha dovuto fare denuncia ed è partita una inchiesta (per omissioni di atti di ufficio) dalla Procura della Repubblica di Torino.
I dati sono comunque sottostimati (si rifanno solo alle segnalazioni) e c'è da pensare che l'AIFA stia occultando documentazioni in merito alla farmacovigilanza (dichiarazioni on. Zaccagnini)
la ministra Lorenzin è stata denunciata alla Procura della Repubblica in quanto PUR ESSENDO A CONOSCENZA DI QUESTI DATI dal 10 maggio, non li ha resi noti al parlamento, ed ha comunque emesso il decreto il 19 maggio IGNORANDO I DATI di portata di gran lunga superiore al famoso "1 su un milione"
Il decreto legge è tutt'ora coperto da segreto.
Codacons chiede:
- no all'obbligo laddove non ci sia epidemia
- esami prevaccinali
- vaccini singoli
... Se vi sembra poco... Grazie Codacons!!!!!!!!! <3
STOP VIVISECTION Press Release
13/5/2015
STOP VIVISECTION Audition in Brussels:
a significant consensus
_____________________________
The hugely successful European Citizens Initiative (ECI) "STOP VIVISECTION" reached an important milestone on Monday 11th May, as witnessed by the hundreds of citizens who attended the public hearing at the EU Parliament in Brussels.
A FIRST HEARING (behind closed doors) was held at the offices of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, which was represented by Vice President Jyrki Katainen, Director General of DG Environment Karl Falkenberg and several other senior Commission executives, all of whom expressed a shared consensus on the goals of STOP VIVISECTION (the end of animal experimentation). The ECI organisers were represented by Professor Gianni Tamino, Dr Andre Menache, Adriano Varrica, Vanna Brocca, Fabrizia Pratesi and Flavien Deltort. Despite some differences with respect to a definite timeline in achieving this goal, an atmosphere of goodwill pervaded throughout this historical meeting, which brought the issue of animal testing to the attention of the heads of European decision makers.
The promoters of STOP VIVISECTION proposed a transition period of five years, culminating in the total abolition of animal testing (in the field of human biomedical research). During this transition period all available non animal test methods would be made mandatory, all validations, whenever possible, would be done, as well as the correction of the validation procedure, not possible if based on the comparison with the animal model (that never was validated !!) but should be based on the comparison with results obtained on the human species.
The Commission expressed its appreciation to those who have completed an ECI and its desire that such an instrument of democracy be more often used.
A SECOND HEARING (attended by several hundreds of persons) was held at the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT in the afternoon of Monday, May 11. The hearing was organized by four parliamentary Committees (AGRI, agriculture and animal-welfare / ENVI, environment and health / ITRE, industry and trade / PETI, petitions).
After the greetings of the Presidents of ENVI and AGRI Committees and introduction of the Commission (Jyrki Katainen and Karl Falkenberg) the first to speak were the scientists of the Promoters' group: Gianni Tamino, Claude Reiss and André Menache. All three explained the scopes of the Initiative and the reasons for the actual very widely spread opposition to animal testing in the world of science.
The followong debate, entitled "Prospects for the current legislative framework, the value of the animal model for predicting human responses and alternatives to animal testing."
was divided in three "rounds". Each opened with the statements of one of the three experts (chosen by AGRI) in animal experimentation. These were:
Ray Greek, president of the American "Americans For Medical Advancement" (AFMA), Francoise Barré-Sinoussi, on behalf of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries (EFPIA), and Emily Mc Ivor, for the Humane Society International.
Ray Greek and Emily Mc Ivor strongly supported STOP VIVISECTION. Ray Greek with a very precise explanation of the scientific reasons behind the Initiative. Not so - obviously - Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, who, referring to her life's work, stated that the animal model should not be abandoned. The debate held in each of the rounds was fed with numerous interventions of Deputies (the only ones who were authorized to speak from the audience). Figures show the weight of a quite tangible success for STOP VIVISECTION in Parliament: out of 29 interventions of deputies 16 were in favor, 10 against and 3 neutral.
The CONCLUSIONS of the long afternoon meeting (3:00 pm to 6:30 pm) were drawn by Gianni Tamino. He asked the Commission to be given precise and trustworthy answers, and to reject the strong contradictions existing in Directive 2010/63.
A full awareness, he said, now exists in society that defending the rights of science, defending the rights of humans for health and a sound environment, and defending the rights of animals requires us to go in the very same direction: the end of animal testing. He asked that the period "Animal testing is still necessary for the protection of human health" be deleted from the 2010/63 directive and from any other European law.
An overall evaluation of the results obtained with the Initiative "STOP VIVISECTION" can be made within a month when the official response of the EU Commission will be given to the ECI proponents.
However, at present, at the date of May 11, 2015, the STOP VIVISECTION proponents are happy to say that a positive change seems to be happening , and that they have high hopes that the decisions of the EU Commission, in June, will welcome their issues in a satisfactory way.
To continue to be informed in the next few months about STOP VIVISECTION
go to the site
<www.stopvivisection.eu>
or call:
Adriano Varrica: +0039.3204549161
Fabrizia Pratesi: +0039.335.8444949
Vanna Pitcher: +0039.3358214023
L'inganno di chi ostacola STOPVIVISECTION
L'inganno di chi ostacola STOPVIVISECTION
Con l'incredibile aumento di firme si scatenano le obiezioni e le critiche. Ecco qualche risposta:
"“Vivisection”, in italiano “vivisezione” è un termine fuorviante, usato allo scopo di evocare immagini cruente e suscitare quindi reazioni emotive, le quali pregiudicano la valutazione obiettiva dei fatti. “Vivisezione” significa etimologicamente “sezione in vivo”, una pratica superata e proibita: oggigiorno gli effetti della sperimentazione sugli organi si osservano in maniera non invasiva, mediante l’uso della TAC. "
1) Vivisezione a livello etimologico può essere utilizzato in qualsiasi esperimento richieda chirurgia, ad esempio nelle neuroscienze cognitive spesso si apre il cranio ai primati soggetti di studio per inserire elettrodi.
2) Vediamo cosa ne dice il Treccani del termine "vivisezione":"Con significato più estensivo, il concetto di v. può essere applicato a tutte quelle modalità di sperimentazione, non necessariamente cruente, che inducano lesioni o alterazioni anatomiche e funzionali (ed eventualmente la morte) negli animali di laboratorio."http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/vivisezione/
"In concreto, senza giochi di parole, ciò che si propone è di sostituire le cavie animali con cavie umane"
Sbagliato, "dati specifici per la specie umana" indica i metodi alternativi ai test su animali, che non si limitano ai modelli in vitro monocellulari 2D, ma includono gli Organs on a Chip, il microdosing, i microarray, i bioreattori multicompartimentali, le cocolture integrate discrete multiorgano, e molto altro.
"Uno degli slogan più ricorrenti della propaganda animalista sostiene che gli animali non fornirebbero un modello sperimentale poiché biologicamente diversi dall’uomo. In realtà i processi evolutivi tendono a conservare i caratteri utili alla sopravvivenza, in evoluzione si parla infatti di caratteri conservativi."
I sostenitori dell’utilità del modello animale nella ricerca giustificano la loro posizione affermando che gli organismi viventi condividerebbero una certa percentuale dei geni tra loro e quindi i processi fisiologici risulterebbero simili in tutte le specie animali, che condividono dei caratteri conservativi, che tendono cioè a rimanere costanti durante l’evoluzione.
Dicono ad esempio: “(…) Non ha alcun senso parlare di un ciclo di Krebs umano e di un ciclo di Krebs del topo, suddetto ciclo di reazioni è identico in ogni animale. Se un farmaco sperimentale interferirà con tale ciclo di reazioni, sarà ugualmente tossico sia nel topo che nell’uomo”.
Giustamente non ha senso di parlare di un ciclo di Krebs per l’uomo e di uno per un topo come non avrebbe senso distinguere quello dell’uomo da quello dell’ameba o di un banano, dato che si tratta di organismi eucarioti che respirano ossigeno e pertanto condividono i processi biochimici della respirazione. Se un farmaco interferisce con tale ciclo di reazioni potremmo osservarne l’effetto tossico su qualunque cellula eucariota che respiri ossigeno. Si tratta di processi biochimici di base, per cui non c’è bisogno di “scomodare” l’organismo intero nella sua complessità per fare tali deduzioni.
Visto che l’uomo condivide circa l’80% dei geni con il topo e ben il 98,5% con lo scimpanzé (ma condivide anche il 35% del genoma con l’alga Chlamydomonas), ciò basterebbe a giustificare il ricorso al modello animale come modello predittivo causale analogo (CAM) delle reazioni ai farmaci e nella risposta ai processi fisio-patologici.
Su queste basi c’è ad esempio una buona ragione per credere che lo sviluppo embrionale degli arti nel topo, nel pollo e nell’uomo avvenga allo “stesso modo”. Tuttavia l’effetto del talidomide sullo sviluppo degli arti degli embrioni umani (mancato sviluppo – neonati focomelici) fu disastroso e successivamente non si riuscì a riprodurre tale effetto sugli animali. Si riuscì in seguito a riprodurre la focomelia in alcuni animali utilizzando dosi di farmaco molto maggiori ed alterando la fisiologia degli animali da esperimento. Il modello murino di distrofia muscolare umana si è rivelato un fallimento: due differenze precedentemente non notate (un interruttore genico, o promotore, e un nuovo sito di legame per la sintrofina) sono codificate dal gene per la α-distrobrevina di quasi tutti i tetrapodi, eccetto che nel topo e nel ratto (Bohm et al 2009). Le scimmie furono usate come modello per lo studio della poliomielite umana, fatto che causò notevole ritardo nella comprensione dei meccanismi patogenetici della polio nell’uomo. Gli scimpanzé (la specie più affine all’uomo filogeneticamente) sono stati impiegati fin dai primi anni ‘80 come modello di studio per l’infezione da HIV (virus responsabile dell’immunodeficienza umana – AIDS), epatite c ed altre patologie ma nessuno di questi studi ha avuto una significativa rilevanza per la specie umana (Knight 2008; Bailey 2005; Bailey 2008; Shanks & Greek, 2009a). Di esempi così se ne potrebbero fare tantissimi. Eppure ci si aspetterebbe che i processi fisiologici e la suscettibilità a determinate patologie siano “simili”, soprattutto tra specie molto vicine (uomo e scimpanzé).
Grazie ai recenti progressi nella conoscenza del gene, regolazione, espressione genica, derivanti in gran parte al Progetto Genoma Umano, oggi possiamo formulare delle valide teorie per spiegare ciò che fino a pochi anni fa potevamo osservare soltanto empiricamente.
Gli animali (uomo compreso) sono tipici esempi di sistemi complessi a molti livelli, dotati di proprietà emergenti, modulari e non lineari. Una perturbazione nel sistema S1 che provoca un effetto A, non necessariamente porterà allo stesso effetto A nel sistema complesso S2, a prescindere da quanto “simili” possano essere i sistemi S1 ed S2.
I motivi per cui i sistemi viventi possono manifestare risposte diverse agli stessi stimoli sono differenze rispetto: 1) presenza di determinati geni 2) mutazioni sullo stesso gene (geni ortologhi) 3) Proteine e loro attività 4) regolazione genica 5) espressione genica (Odom et al., 2007) 6) interazioni proteina-proteina 7) reti regolatrici geniche 8) organizzazione e struttura dell’organismo in toto (uomo e topo sono entrambi sistemi intatti e completi ma lo sono in modo diverso) 9) stimoli ambientali 10) storia evolutiva.
Queste sono alcune delle importantissime ragioni per cui due sistemi complessi anche sorprendentemente simili (ad esempio uomo e scimpanzé che condividono ben il 98,5% dei geni) possono reagire in modo diverso alla somministrazione di un farmaco, di un vaccino, nello sviluppo di un processo patologico o nel contatto con un agente patogeno.
"Molti studi moderni sono condotti su organismi transgenici, ottenuti a partire da uno zigote (fecondato in vitro o prelevato in vivo) all’interno del quale si inserisce il gene mutato in esame, oppure in altri casi, si rimuove un determinato gene (cavie knock out)."
Negli ultimi anni si è incrementato l’uso di animali transgenici, portatori di geni umani: in realtà questa pratica può essere molto pericolosa sia perché esistono delle divergenze evolutive e lo stesso gene può avere funzioni diverse in 2 specie differenti, sia perché potrebbero attivarsi dei meccanismi compensatori della modificazione indotta, ai fini di mantenere l’omeostasi (Vincent et al, 2009).
"Come detto, la petizione Stop Vivisection si propone di abrogare la direttiva europea 2010/63, la quale è il risultato di un lunga collaborazione tra comunità scientifica ed Eurogroup for animals, gruppo di cui fanno parte varie associazioni animaliste europee tra le quali troviamo anche importanti associazioni italiane.
In realtà nell'Eurogroup for animals non fanno parte i comitati promotori, ovvero Comitato Scientifico Antivivisezionista Equivita, Antidote Europe e LEAL.
Note bibliografiche:
Balls, M. (2004) Are animal tests inherently valid? ATLA: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 32(Suppl. 1B), 755–758.
Bailey J. Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: a critical review. Biogenic Amines 2005; 19(4-6): 235–255.
Bailey J., “An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research,”Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
Böhm SV, Constantinou P, Tan S, Jin H, Roberts RG. Profound human/mouse differences in alpha-dystrobrevin isoforms: a novel syntrophin-binding site and promoter missing in mouse and rat. BMC Biol. 2009 Dec 4;7:85.
Borison HL, Borison R, McCarthy LE. Phylogenic and neurologic aspects of the vomiting process. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1981;21:23S–29S
Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity. Altern Lab Anim 2006; 34(1): 19-27
Knight A. Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Altern Lab Anim 2007; 35(6): 641-659.
Knight BSc., Andrew The poor contribution of chimpancé experiments to biomedical progress. REDVET. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria, vol. IX, núm. 10B, octubre, 2008, pp. 1-34 Veterinaria Organización Málaga, Españ.
Lewis, D. F. V.; Ioannides, C.; Parke, D. V., Cytochromes P450 and species differences in xenobiotic metabolism and activation of carcinogen. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998, 106 (10), 633-641.
Mark J. Graham, Brian G. Lake, Induction of drug metabolism: Species differences and toxicological relevance, Toxicology, Volume 254, Issue 3, 30 December 2008, Pages 184-191, ISSN 0300-483X, 10.1016/j.tox.2008.09.002.
Matthews RA. Medical progress depends on animal models – doesn’t it? J R Soc Med 2008: 101: 95–8.
Shanks and C. Ray Greek. Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton, Fla. : BrownWalker Press, 2009b.
Shanks, Ray Greek, Jean Greek, Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2009; 4: 2. Published online 2009 January 15. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-4-2
Odom et al., “Tissue-specific transcriptional regulation has diverged significantly between human and mouse,” Nat Genet, 39:730?2, June 2007.
Pound P., Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, Ian Roberts Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ. 2004 February 28; 328(7438): 514–517.
Rice JM, 2010 The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2011 6:12.
Sabrina V Böhm, Panayiotis Constantinou, Sipin Tan, Hong Jin, Roland G Roberts, Profound human/mouse differences in alpha-dystrobrevin isoforms: a novel syntrophin-binding site and promoter missing in mouse and rat BMC Biology 2009, 7:85 (4 December 2009)
The Trouble with Animal Models – The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/home/53306/
Usha Sankar. The Delicate Toxicity Balance in Drug Discovery. The Scientist 2005, 19(15):32
van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V et al.: Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 2010, 7: e1000245
Vincent J. Lynch Yale J, Use with caution: Developmental systems divergence and potential pitfalls of animal models Biol Med. 2009 June; 82(2): 53–66. Published online 2009 June. PMCID: PMC2701150
Statement supporting European Directive 2010/63/EU (“Directive”) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes
The European Parliament and Commission must oppose the ‘Stop Vivisection’ Citizens’ Initiative that is seeking to repeal the Directive and ban animal research. The Directive is vital to ensure that necessary research involving animals can continue whilst requiring enhanced animal welfare standards.
Summary: The use of animals in research has facilitated major breakthroughs in medicine which have transformed human and animal health. We support research using animals where alternative methods are not available, where the potential benefits to health are compelling, and where acceptable ethical and welfare standards can be met. The Directive has enhanced animal welfare standards and introduced the concepts of refinement, replacement and reduction (‘3Rs’) across the EU, while ensuring Europe remains a world leader in biomedical research. The ‘Stop Vivisection’ Citizens’ Initiative must be opposed by the European Parliament and the Commission - repealing the Directive would represent a major step backwards both for animal welfare in the EU and for Europe’s leading role in advancing human and animal health.
Research using animals has enabled major advances in the understanding of biology and has contributed to the development of nearly every type of treatment used in medical and veterinary practice today. Research on animals continues to be necessary to understand human and animal health and disease, and to develop and improve treatments for patient benefit across the world.
Animals may be used in research under the Directive where the potential medical, veterinary and scientific benefits are compelling and there is no viable alternative method. The use of animals for testing cosmetic products was banned across the EU in 2009 and the importation and sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals from outside the EU was completely banned in 2013.
For research using animals to be both ethical and scientifically rigorous, it must meet high welfare standards and the implementation of the Directive is key in achieving these standards consistently across the EU. Shaped by consultation with animal welfare groups, scientists and animal technologists, the Directive importantly embeds into EU legislation the requirement to consider the 3Rs when using animals in research. The 3Rs are:
• Replacement – methods which avoid or replace the use of animals;
• Reduction - methods which minimise the number of animals used per experiment;
• Refinement – methods which minimise any suffering and improve animal welfare.
Developments for alternative methods to the use of animals in research, such as use of human cell models and computer modelling, continue to progress and the biosciences sector must continue to drive these forward. However, alternative methods are not able to fully replace the use of animals at this time. For many diseases, including complex conditions such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes, which affect multiple organs, we must understand how the whole organism interacts, which means that research using whole animals continues to be essential.
We call on the European Parliament and Commission to reaffirm their commitment to the Directive. Any roll back from this would both undermine animal welfare and compromise high-quality research using animals. Such research is critical to advancing human and animal health in the EU and globally -and to maintaining Europe’s leading role in that endeavour.
Jeremy Rifkin: OPINION PIECE on STOPVIVISECTION
Moving Beyond Animal Experimentation Across the European Union
Sometimes, the great transformative changes in society fly under the radar screen. That is happening right now across the European Union. A grassroots citizens movement to halt the senseless practice of subjecting millions of animals to painful suffering and death in the testing of toxic chemicals that affect human health is picking up momentum in every country in Europe.
The STOP VIVESECTION campaign (http://www.stopvivisection.eu/) is taking advantage of article 11 of the European Treaty, which establishes the right to introduce European Citizen’s Initiatives (ECI), to mobilize broad popular support. Under the procedure, if one million EU citizens from at least one quarter of the member states sign onto a Citizen’s Initiative, it can be automatically submitted to the European Commission in the form of a legislative proposal, giving the citizenry the same formal right to propose legislation that is already granted to the European Parliament and the European Council.
The STOP VIVESECTION initiative has already collected over 700,000 signatures from across Europe and is within striking distance of reaching its goal of over 1 million signatures.
For years, governments, corporations, and researchers have argued that the testing of animals to assess the risk of chemicals to human health is essential to ensure the well-being of our own species. But now, new breakthroughs in the field of genomics, bioinformatics, epigenetics, and computational toxicology are providing new research tools for studying the impact of toxic chemicals on human health that are far more accurate in assessing the risk of these chemicals to human beings. Antivivisection societies and animal rights organizations have made this argument for many, many years—only to be scorned by scientific bodies, medical associations, and industry lobbies who accuse them of being “anti-progress” in caring more about animals than people. Now it is the scientific establishment, interestingly enough, that has come to the very same conclusions.
A number of years ago, the National Research Council of the United States’ National Academy of Sciences—the premier scientific body in America—issued an exhaustive study questioning the continued value of subjecting millions of animals to toxicity testing. According to the report, and this is a quote, “current tests provide little information on modes and mechanisms of action, which are critical for understanding interspecies differences in toxicity, and little or no information for assessing human variability and human susceptibility.” In other words, millions of animals each year are subjected to senseless suffering and put to death despite the fact that the tests provide very little information for assessing the risk of these chemicals to human beings. Toxicity testing in animals is simply bad science.
The National Academy of Sciences report says that new cutting-edge technologies now offer the possibility of securing more accurate data for the first time on chemical risk exposure. Indeed, the architects of the report say “over time the need for animal testing should be greatly reduced—and possibly even eliminated.” Good news for our fellow creatures.
While the new methodologies for toxicity testing will spare the lives of millions of animals, they also hold the promise of saving the lives of millions of human beings. Quicker and cheaper testing procedures and more accurate data will speed the assessment of these risks of chemicals and provide the means of creating new drugs and other interventions to secure our own health. In short, it’s a win-win for both our fellow creatures and human beings.
The public may be largely unaware of the fact that Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union acknowledges that “since animals are sentient beings” the formulation and implementation of EU policies must “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
With new state-of-the-art research-testing models, there is no longer any need to subject millions and millions of animals to inhumane testing in research laboratories. It is time now to quickly phase out vivisection research in laboratories across the European Union. The STOP VIVESECTION Citizen’s Initiative takes Europe and the world into a new era where we extend our empathic sensibility to our fellow creatures, recognizing their inherent right to exist and flourish alongside our species here on Earth.
Jeremy Rifkin is an adviser to the European Union and to heads of state around the world. He is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C.