World AIDS Day & Charities

[Michael Vincenzo]

If you contribute money to HIV/AIDS related charities, please consider one that has the Humane Charity Seal of Approval. http://www.humaneseal.org/images/tinyHS.gif

 

I will elaborate on the ineffectiveness, and waste of money, on animal testing (vivisection) in a subsequent post in the near future. I am currently gathering verifiable statistics that will arm you with evidence and make you a more informed charitable donor.

 

Here is a list of HIV/AIDS charities that do not test on animals:

 

AIDS Coalition of Cape Breton

150 Bentinck Street

PO BOX 177

Sydney, B1P 6H1

Canada

Phone: 902-567-1766

Web: www.accb.ns.ca

 

AIDS Emergency Fund

965 Mission St., Ste. 630

San Francisco, CA 94103

Phone: 415-558-6999

Fax: 415-558-6990

Email: mikesmith @ aef-sf.org

Web: aidsemergencyfund.org/

AIDS Foundation Houston

3202 Weslayan

Houston, TX 77027

Phone: 713-623-6796

Fax: 713-623-4029

Email: info@afhouston.org

Web: www.aidshelp.org

 

BEBASHI

1217 Spring Garden St., 1st Fl.

Philadelphia, PA 19123

Phone: 215-769-3561

Web: www.bebashi.org

 

Boulder County AIDS Project

2118 Fourteenth St.

Boulder, CO 80302

Phone: 303-444-6121

Fax: 303-444-0260

Email: ana@bcap.com

Web: www.bcap.org/

 

Cascade AIDS Project

208 S.W. Fifth Ave., Ste. 800

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: 503-223-5907

Fax: 503-223-6437

Email: mkaplan@cascadeaids.org

Web: www.cascadeaids.org

 

Chicago House

1925 N. Clayburn, Ste. 401

Chicago, IL 60614

Phone: 773-248-5200

Web: www.chicagohouse.org

 

Children Affected by AIDS Foundation

6033 West Century Blvd., Ste. 280

Los Angeles, CA 90045

Phone: 310-258-0850

Fax: 310-258-0851

Email: cbrown@caaf.org

Web: www.caaf4kids.org/

 

Concerned Citizens for Humanity

3580 Main St., Ste. 115, Bldg. 1

Hartford, CT 06120-1121

Phone: 860-560-0833

Web: www.concernedcitizensforhumanity.org

Design Industries Foundation Fighting AIDS (DIFFA)

200 Lexington Ave., Ste 1016

New York, NY 10016-6255

Phone: 212-727-3100

Web: www.diffa.org

The Eric Johnson House, Inc.

44 South St.

Morristown, NJ 07960

Phone: 973-326-9636

Web: www.theericjohnsonhouse.org

Gay Men's Health Crisis

119 W. 24th St.

New York, NY 10011

Phone: 212-367-1000

Fax: 212-367-1020

Web: www.gmhc.org

 

Health Cares Exchange Initiative Inc.

7100 N. Ashland Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60626

Phone: 617-499-7780

Web: www.hcei.org

HIV Network of Edmonton Society

11456 Jasper Ave., Ste. 300

Edmonton, T5K 0M1

Canada

Phone: 780-488-5742

Fax: 780-488-3735

Web: www.hivedmonton.com

Joshua Tree Feeding Program, Inc.

1601 W. Indian School Rd.

Pheonix, AZ 85015-5223

Phone: 602-264-0223

Web: www.joshuatreefeedingprograminc.org

 

Loving Arms

1233 Peabody Ave

Memphis, TN 38104

Phone: 901-725-6730

 

Miracle House of New York

80 Eighth Ave., Ste. 315

New York, NY 10011

Phone: 212-989-7790

Web: www.miraclehouse.org

 

Phoenix Shanti Group, Inc.

2345 West Glendale Ave.

Pheonix, AZ 85021

Phone: 602-279-0008

Web: www.shantiaz.org

 

The Tidewater AIDS Community Taskforce (The AIDS Fund, Inc)

9229 Granby Street

Norfolk, VA 23503

Phone: 757-583-1317

Fax: 757-583-2749

Email: info@tact-online.com

Web: www.tact-online.com/

[rvwnsd]

Chicago House Address

 

 

Chicago House[/b]

1925 N. Clayburn, Ste. 401

Chicago, IL 60614

Phone: 773-248-5200

Web: www.chicagohouse.org

 

[/url]

 

Thank you for posting the list of charities. There is a slight error in the address of Chicago House. The correct street name is "Clybourn." The address is:

 

Chicago House

1925 N Clybourn St, Ste 401

Chicago, IL 60614

 

For those who live in San Diego County, CA, Mama's Kitchen provides meals and groceries for people living with HIV/AIDS. They may be contacted at

 

Mama's Kitchen

1875 2nd Ave

San Diego, CA 92101-2617

(619) 233-6262

 

http://www.mamaskitchen.org

[Michael Vincenzo]

Thank you for posting the list of charities. There is a slight error in the address of Chicago House. The correct street name is "Clybourn." The address is:

 

Chicago House

1925 N Clybourn St, Ste 401

Chicago, IL 60614

 

 

Thank you for the correction. I copied and pasted all of the aforementioned charities and their information.

[rvwnsd]

You are welcome.

[Mark Gordon]

both sides

 

A balanced consideration of the role of animal testing in developing HIV drugs and vaccines from international AIDS charity AVERT:

 

http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm

[Michael Vincenzo]

A balanced consideration of the role of animal testing in developing HIV drugs and vaccines from international AIDS charity AVERT:

 

http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm

 

HIV is unique to our species. Cures are most likely to be found by studying the physiology of human beings, not other animals.

 

A quarter-century of primate research has failed to produce an HIV/AIDS vaccine—more than 80 vaccines that worked in monkeys have failed in humans.

 

Protease inhibitors were delayed by four years because they failed in animal trials (this should be enough evidence for anyone who lost someone to HIV/AIDS during this time). Research on a potentially life-saving treatment was halted in 1989, and clinical trials of a new protease drug, Crixivan, did not start until 1993. This first protease inhibitor might have been a lifesaver, like the subsequent generation of protease drugs. But MSD seems to have concluded that what kills dogs and rats will also kill people. Development was axed, and vast numbers of people with HIV continued to die.

 

MSD (Merck, Sharpe and Dohme) admits that animal studies were not used in the primary research that led to the invention of the follow-up protease inhibitor, Crixivan. Based on the knowledge that HIV is a uniquely human disease, MSD scientists focused on studying the structure of HIV and its interaction with human cells. Designed on computers, the protease drug was initially safety-tested using non-animal methods. According to Shapiro, writing in Positive Nation: “Animal tests were neither needed, nor used, to explore the ability of protease inhibitors to block the growth of the Aids virus…the target action was already well understood and could be evaluated before the clinical trials using computers, cell culture and biochemical assays.”

 

It was only when MSD decided to test the original version of the new protease inhibitor on dogs and rats that they ran into trouble. All died of liver failure. Protease inhibitors have dramatically improved the lives of people with HIV, ending the normal pattern of fatality associated with long-term HIV infection.

[Michael Vincenzo]

If you still want to waste your charitable donations toward HIV/AIDS charities that test on animals, even after reading my previous post, take a look at the following:

 

http://www.avert.org/media/content/graphs/aids-diagnoses-deaths2.jpg

 

So many lives could have been saved if only science had realized that animals are not a good model for how drugs will react in humans. Take a look at how many human deaths occurred between 1989 - 1993 from AIDS because life saving protease inhibitors didn't pass animal trials.

 

Anyone can participate in the solution:

 

 

• Donate to charities that carry the "Humane Charity Seal of Approval" (http://www.humaneseal.org/search.cfm?ap=y)
  
• Let other charities know why you choose not to donate, and when unsure do your research; there is a humane charity for every cause!
  
• Support legislation that would encourage non-animal testing.
  

 

Humane charities, that are involved with scientific research, use the many modern, sophisticated, cutting-edge technologies that offer replacements to animal testing that are cheaper, faster, and more reliable in modeling the human condition. Using cell lines, tissue cultures, computer and mathematical modeling, clinical investigations, epidemiological research, autopsy studies, and other non-animal means, the life-saver charities blaze paths to better understanding of human disease.

[seeker630]

Animal testing...

 

is NOT synonymous with vivisection.

[seeker630]

 

 

It was only when MSD decided to test the original version of the new protease inhibitor on dogs and rats that they ran into trouble. All died of liver failure. Protease inhibitors have dramatically improved the lives of people with HIV, ending the normal pattern of fatality associated with long-term HIV infection.

 

If you check the adverse effects & toxicity information for Crixivan, you'll see warnings of liver toxicity & failure in some patients - as was evidenced in the animal studies.

 

No one involved in drug development will claim that animal testing exactly mirrors human experience in efficacy or safety, and there is a great deal of work being done to find alternatives to needless animal testing. But every drug has side effects and I personally would prefer to preview them in animals rather than humans.

[dfw2sfo]

Research funders?

 

While I know that feeding, housing, clothing and other services are critical for our brothers and sisters with HIV/AIDS, none of that will make a difference with a potential vaccine, medications to extend life or anything of the sort. The charities you list provide support to people with HIV/AIDS, and have nothing to do with a cure or medicinal extension of life.

 

Animal rights groups commonly point to other organizations donors can support that provide resources for education or support in sustaining day to day living rather than research. I'm not saying these other organizations are not important but don't think giving to a group that will help provide clothing or housing will make a difference in a cure.

[Michael Vincenzo]

is NOT synonymous with vivisection.

 

Well, yes, it really is.

 

The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[7] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[8] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[9] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[10][11]

[seeker630]

Well, yes, it really is.

 

The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[7] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[8] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[9] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[10][11]

 

I think your own quote makes it clear that your chosen definition strays from the literal, original meaning and is used perjoratively by those who share your views. Notice that your own quote says the term is 'occasionally used perjoratively...'

[Michael Vincenzo]

While I know that feeding, housing, clothing and other services are critical for our brothers and sisters with HIV/AIDS, none of that will make a difference with a potential vaccine, medications to extend life or anything of the sort. The charities you list provide support to people with HIV/AIDS, and have nothing to do with a cure or medicinal extension of life.

 

Animal rights groups commonly point to other organizations donors can support that provide resources for education or support in sustaining day to day living rather than research. I'm not saying these other organizations are not important but don't think giving to a group that will help provide clothing or housing will make a difference in a cure.

 

I'm not against research. I am for twenty-first century science that relies on human based research. Animal research has an appallingly abysmal track record! Charities, universities, and "scientific researchers" are getting billions of dollars in donations and grant money to pursue dead end animal research that ultimately does not relate to humans.

 

The FDA reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, and go into human clinical testing, proceed to fail during the human clinical trial phase. So, in short, pharmaceuticals that are derived from animal testing have a 8% success rate in humans. Before anyone gets too excited about the whopping 8% success rate, let me remind you that this figure does not represent the drugs that pass human trials and are later recalled. It does not account for the long list of "acceptable side effects" (uncontrollable bowel movements, paralysis, constipation, suicidal tendencies, or death)

 

I am still trying to find a valid charity, doing medical research, for HIV/AIDS that does not test on animals. I will follow up to this thread when I get that information.

 

I am not trying to present a problem without options for a solution.

[Michael Vincenzo]

I think your own quote makes it clear that your chosen definition strays from the literal, original meaning and is used perjoratively by those who share your views. Notice that your own quote says the term is 'occasionally used perjoratively...'

 

Vivisection is the act or practice of cutting into, or otherwise injuring a living animal, especially for the purpose of scientific research.

 

Animal testing refers to the use of animals in experiments.

 

It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide, from zebra fish to non-human primates, are used annually and either killed during the experiment or subsequently euthanized.

[Michael Vincenzo]

The solution to the HIV/AIDS crisis will only come from human related research. Please do not misinterpret that as research on humans. The science is readily available, right now!

 

As for me, I don't want any human or animal to suffer. Suffering is unacceptable! So, take the information or leave it. For me, I will never concede to suffering of any kind.

[Michael Vincenzo]

 

I am still trying to find a valid charity, doing medical research, for HIV/AIDS that does not test on animals. I will follow up to this thread when I get that information.

 

I am not trying to present a problem without options for a solution.

 

http://www.drhadwentrust.org/

 

http://www.drhadwentrust.org/news/world-aids-day-warning-animal-research-costs-human-lives

[Michael Vincenzo]

http://www.idausa.org/ir/reports/aidsresearch.html

[Mark Gordon]

The Role of AIDS Charities

 

The fact is that it is currently considered unethical by the medical and scientific communities to conduct clinical trials of anti-retrovirals and vaccines on humans which have not first undergone animal testing.

If you still want to waste your charitable donations toward HIV/AIDS charities that test on animals

 

It is absurd to suggest that donations to most of the existing AIDS charities are a waste of money on the grounds that they do not have a policy against animal testing. Most HIV/AIDS charitable organizations are not involved in funding pharmaceutical research. It costs upwards of $1 billion to develop a new anti-retroviral. The bulk of funding comes from a handful of profit-driven big pharmaceutical companies, sometimes in partnership with smaller life sciences companies, with some support from governments and large private foundations. Community based AIDS charities focus mainly on local prevention initiatives and providing support for those affected. Most AIDS charities do not have a policy on animal testing because it is not their sphere. Of those which do have a policy, many come out in favour of animal testing, and some, like AVERT, acknowledge both sides of the issue. There are a huge number of deserving AIDS charities which do vital work, of which your list is only a decidedly small sampling. Very few of them contribute to pharmaceutical research, let alone animal testing.

 

Finally, following your logic on the definition of vivisection, would you also describe human clinical trials as ‘human vivisection’?

[Michael Vincenzo]

The fact is that it is currently considered unethical by the medical and scientific communities to conduct clinical trials of anti-retrovirals and vaccines on humans which have not first undergone animal testing.

 

All pharmaceuticals are required by law to be tested on animals before entering human trials. I am still against it because my ethical standards apply to all living creatures and other, less costly, and more reliable methods are available. Old school scientists and researchers have only been taught the animal method and therefore have become less objective to more modern medicine.

 

For example, Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.

 

It is absurd to suggest that donations to most of the existing AIDS charities are a waste of money on the grounds that they do not have a policy against animal testing. Most HIV/AIDS charitable organizations are not involved in funding pharmaceutical research.

 

If a charity is not involved in animal testing, then having a policy stating that it doesn't test on animals shouldn't be a problem.

It costs upwards of $1 billion to develop a new anti-retroviral. The bulk of funding comes from a handful of profit-driven big pharmaceutical companies, sometimes in partnership with smaller life sciences companies, with some support from governments and large private foundations.

 

The waste involved with this cost, which comes from tax payer's contributions, is outrageously wasted on animal testing:

 

Cost for one research primate = $30,000 or more

 

100% of HIV vaccines that passed animal trials have failed in human trials

 

80 vaccines have passed animal trials and later failed in human trials

 

4 years wasted because protease inhibitors didn't pass animal trials

 

Millions of lives could have been saved if the focus remained on animals research; protease inhibitors were brought to market after this 4 year lapse of time...all using human research

 

A research scientist working on AIDS therapies wrote in New Scientist that “Animal research merely gives false hope to people who need real cures and detracts financially and intellectually from more appropriate research."

 

Finally, following your logic on the definition of vivisection, would you also describe human clinical trials as ‘human vivisection’?

 

If you cut up, or otherwise injure, a living human being for the purpose of scientific research, then it would be called human vivisection. Because vivisection literally means the dissection or cutting of a living animal most people would say that it doesn't apply because humans (with their false sense of superiority intact) tend to think they are not animals.

During this post someone was offended by the word vivisection, or my grammatical use of the word; funny how that person, although in a huff about it's usage, couldn't offer the simple definition and instead detracted from an intellectual conversation about this subject.

[Michael Vincenzo]

and if you are still comfortable with animal testing...

 

then you will have no problem watching this video:

 

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=test_of_civ&Player=qt

 

and this one:

 

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=covance_main&Player=qt

 

and this one:

 

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=testing123&Player=qt

 

and this one:

 

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=malish&Player=qt

 

If you still feel that this is the answer, then carry on. I, for one, will not be complicit in suffering of any kind and will never lose my resolve to bring these acts to the attention of others.

[seeker630]

I confess, I didn't past the second paragraph of this article because of the erroneous statements about AZT (zidovudine; Retrovir):

"AZT, one of the first medications used to treat AIDS was originallyan anti-cancer drug. The efficacy of AZT was first demonstrated in 1985using test tube research. It went directly to clinical trials without goingthrough the usual animal tests. One reason for this was that it was so wellknown from it's use in cancer."

 

AZT was NOT 'well-known for it's use in cancer'. I actually spoke to the man who investigated AZT as an anti-cancer agent, before it was used an an anti-viral, and he told me they never progressed to animal studies for cancer because it didn't show sufficent efficcacy in cell cultures.

 

The development path for AZT as an anti-viral was atypical and the FDA allowed a 'fast track' development because AIDS was such a fearsome spectre at the time and everyone was desperate for a treatment. I do know that the results of animal testing were published in the same year as the first clinical paper: ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3463867?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1208 )

so I don;t believe the statment that it went into humans without any preliminary animal testing. At a minimum, there was pharmacological & toxicity testing.

 

AZT is actually a fairly toxic drug and I doubt it would have been approved for the treatment of anything less fearsome than AIDS.

In the interest of full disclosure - I was working for the company which developed AZT as an anti-HIV medicaiton at the time (although *not in a research capacity).

 

This writer simply does not have his facts straight!