Great American Smokeout of just a Great Smoke Screen?

According to the results of a national survey conducted in 2006 roughly 1 in 5 adults in the US smoke cigarettes, a figure that has not changed much since 2004.

The new findings, which appeared in the November 9th issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, were released in advance of Great American Smokeout, to be held this year on November 15.

About 80% of current users reported smoking every day. Roughly 44% of current smokers had made an attempt to quit smoking in previous year and had stopped for more than 1 day.

This lack of decline in cigarette smoking is accompanied by simultaneous (and growing-400 so far) proliferation of hookah bars/clubs as a "safer" social (group activity) alternative.

Smoking cessation methodology probably failed due to the fact that most laboratory studies are conducted on non-humans. Dr. Edythe London, a leading researcher at UCLA, recently admitted in her Op-Ed article in LA Times that animal tobacco dependency model is completely different from that of humans.

Even Dr.London might concede that animals (primates) in the wild can rarely be found in hookah bars surrounded by the rest of the pack equipped with laptops.

In a recent (November 7, 2007) article in the LA Times by Animal Liberation Front (ALF) spokeswoman Lindy Greene claims that “data from one species cannot be extrapolated to another with more than 5% to 25% accuracy”

With 30% being within the acceptable margin of error for any study, Dr. London’s “esteemed” animal research is nothing more than a very expensive (for taxpayers and consumers) guesstimating.

Animal researchers, driven by quest for publishable data and financial well-being, solely dependent on grants from corrupt manufacturers, might do better by just flipping a coin--50% success rate.

Further, the study claims that smoking prevalence differed by gender and race: 23.9% of men vs. 18.0% of women smoked and 10.4% of Asians vs. 21.9% of whites were smokers. In addition, smoking prevalence fell as educational level rose and increased with poverty.

Studies at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences demonstrated that despite African-American children's having a lower exposure to tobacco compared to whites, they have higher levels of serum nicotine than white children.

Further studies are needed to determine whether there are racial differences in the metabolism of other tobacco-related toxins and to assess the efficacy of interventions to reduce ETS exposure among all children.

Race is not a definitive biologic construct, but rather an imprecise arbitrary categorization that is a proxy for multifaceted cross-connected environmental, cultural, socioeconomic, and biologic variables almost insurmountable in its complexity.

I dare Dr. London & Co. to account for all of the critical variables and to publicly admit that animal research can be only approximated, at best, to humans--a far cry from human-relevant data!?

The absurdity of continued animal research is propagated by unscrupulous pharmaceutical manufacturers, their “pet” scientists and the FDA despite the multiple thousands of consumer injuries and deaths every year from adverse reactions to drugs tested "safe" in animals (VIOXX any one?) and, conversely, causes potentially beneficial drugs tested "unsafe" to be discarded.

ALF’s methodology of protecting “creatures that society would arbitrarily place outside the circle of moral compassion and beyond the reach of effective defense” fails to properly use science to educate general public through mass media.

I firmly believe that only a strong outcry form educated public coupled with public refusal to buy products implicated in animal testing/abuse can make a tangible difference for the animals.

We are MAD, you decide!

Dr.D.

P.S. Making a Difference---MAD

"Why do I use animals in research" or " Why do I abduct, detain, confine, mutilate, torture and kill animals" by Dr. E. London

Unfortunately for animals used in research Dr. London conducts those sadistic actions without animals expressed consent to participate in her research activities.

The damage inflicted to Dr. London's residence is stupid and reprehensible. Dr. London's fight against addiction to nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs is admirable. Her use of primates and other animals is incomprehensible. Her justifications for use of animals in non-clinical research could not further away from truth.

Further, she deliberately avoids discussion of non-animal research options such as cell cultures, transgenic modeling and human volunteers to name a few.

Human volunteers recruited among prison inmates, well meaning researchers, executives of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies and their respective family members can provide a new dimension to research--subject's reporting, interactive feedback and ability to follow instructions.

Properly designed and conducted human volunteers study, with preference given to aforementioned groups, will reveal human-specific, hence human-relative data.

These (human) studies are much more likely to be conducted in an ethical and cruelty-free manner, with proper consent, compensation (except for inmates), pain relief, psychological counselling and treatment of any and all complications and adverse outcomes. ACLU can monitor compliance.

In her article Dr. London contradicts herself stating that “While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become “addicted” in the same sense that human…” So why torture monkeys and other animals when there are millions of potential human volunteers stupid enough to subject themselves to tobacco and other addictive substances.

Such (human) studies will invariably yield human-specific hence human-relevant information.

Being a child of Holocaust does not give one a license to inflict Holocaust on animals by using them in research. If nothing else it should have made Dr. London more sensitive to the plight of the weak and defenseless.

Without condoning violence in any shape or form I would like to point out that use and abuse of animals is UCLA researchers is funded and promoted by greedy pharmaceutical companies, such as Amgen that is in serious financial straits due to recent changes in reimbursement for its drugs.

In addition to promoting and conducting animal research (Amgen maintains an extensive vivarium where animals are routinely used for research) by UCLA through its clandestine invitation-only seminars promoting animal research (last conducted October 28, 2007) Amgen simultaneously taints the objectivity and validity of researcher conducted by UCLA.

Hiding behind frequently used and abused "unrestricted educational grant" can not fool any one, Hence, Dr. London's acceptance of tobacco company's money seriously jeopardises UCLA's standing as an "independent third party" seeker of truth!?

I challenge UCLA officials, leadership of Amgen, leadership of tobacco companies, and prominent researches to open a productive dialogue with mainstream activist to reduce and finally eliminate use of animals in research ( and related abuse and exploitation) in favor of genetic modeling and/or use of human volunteers.

We are MAD, you decide.

Dr.D.