The article in question can be found at this site and questions the use of animals in drug testing around the world. What follows is my response that was submitted to that site but didn't pass moderation (i.e. the author didn't like what I had to say).

"More than 10, 000 people are killed every year in the UK by side effects of prescription medicines"

I am always supremely wary of statistics used in this way (without citation of a source, you made me run around to find your evidence...or your sources evidence, whatever). It's an interesting read and can be found here...

Quite aside from the report suggesting that the death rate could be reduced by something like 20% (2000 people) simply by not over prescribing Asprin doses, the report also shows that another 2,000 to 3,000 people simply were unavoidably victims of side effects. Now either you can take this as that 7,000 people a year die yet do so in a way that is avoidable, or that 2-3,000 people die a year in circumstances that are beyond the medical professions control

What this doesn't go into is whether such deaths were unavoidable on a case per case basis or if it was unavoidable because of an intrinsic flaw of the drug. Given that it is in Phase 4 if it's available to the public I'd suggest the former…much like you argue that the biological make up of rats and humans is different, each human has a variety of different biological properties that can and always will combine to be affected by something that 99.9% of the population are safe from.

Ultimately this issue about drug safety is rather moot, since I think no-one here can state that drugs will be 100% safe for everyone no matter what from the day of public availability, animal testing or not. ADR's will occur no matter what the process...how often that will occur dependant on changes in procedure is of course up for debate though I feel that if you've already got to phase 4 testing without animals involved then the equivalent values of fatalities is likely to be no different if all the structures and safeguards of human clinical trials remain.

It's also worth mentioning that Spriet-Pourra C & Auriche M (1994) stated that up to 1994 since 1961 there is a 98% safety rate for drugs, with only 10 drugs in the four countries (US, UK, Germany and France) being taken off of the shelves out of 2000 because of their health effects. Therefore it is likely that since 1994 we have seen 4 drugs taken off of the shelves if we're to believe those rates in any of those four countries. Do correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that only one, maybe two, have actually fallen foul of being widely dangerous after clinical trials.

"92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals"

This statistic says nothing other than that in one layer of drug testing 92% of drugs that reach it are not compatible with Humans. Perhaps a more pertinent question based on this statement (from the US despite this being a "European" movement, I might add) is what the percentage would be if we simply stopped using Animal testing at all.

In the UK I wonder how many serious injuries and deaths occur at clinical trial stage? I certainly have only heard of one incident, TGN1412 in the UK, where anything seriously bad happened in recent times and find it desperately had to find any figures about deaths caused during clinical trials. In fact Richard Ley had said when this happened (from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)) "This is an absolutely exceptional occurrence… I cannot remember anything comparable."

I would welcome any evidence to the contrary that clinical drugs trials are dangerous to a significant percentage, and that such rates of injury and distress would remain as low without animal testing.

"Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit’s infection. Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic medication."

AND...

"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]"

These are not statements about the ineffectualness of animal research, in fact there are studies regarding the use of guinea pigs that you mention that show that the level of fatality of penicillin can likely be contributed either to the early tests involving significantly impure penicillin or to the level of dosage given (comparable doses over prolonged periods would also kill humans by the destruction of our own "friendly bacteria").

But I digress, as my point here is that this is not a statement against animal testing rather than against how the results of animal testing are used. Since the days of Flemming procedures have changed greatly (though maybe not enough, it’s up for debate) and the result of animal testing are used within a much more holistic framework of evidence building. If we are still abandoning perfectly good drugs because the animal testing has failed then I believe that to be either because of lack of funding to take the research forward further or indeed a need to really tie down protocols so that even failed tests aren’t taken to mean that it’s time to shut up shop on that drug. The issue here is about the culture of scientific discovery and taking all of the variables into account before forming a conclusion. Of course I don’t believe there is anything I can see to suggest that the dangers you describe happen anyway.

"Common sense suggests that orthopaedic surgery on a dog, for example, will differ greatly from that on a human. Applying animal data to the human body is always unscientific."

Quite aside from anecdotal evidence that proves nothing other than that more care needs to go into the process of getting the correct technique, this paragraph skips over the issue of physical training. Surgeons can look day and night at simulations and information about surgery, but have to at some point be trained to a standard to deal with the physical situation. Surgery on eyes is different to that on internal organs, etc, and quite aside from how applicable the cut for cut technique is no-one using the common sense you cite would deny that having doctors use to interacting with the physical structure of different parts of the body before they’re let loose on general patient population is a good thing.

Does this mean animals need to be used, of course not...but until affordable solutions are produced that allow surgeons to practice on life like physical models it isn’t realistic to expect the act to stop completely.

All in all, I just can't see this article as anything other than a propaganda piece, as well researched as it seems to be...but claiming post boxes are red does not change the fact that the sky isn't green, which is ultimately the tactic that this type of article employs to distort reality