Animal testing barbaric

This is a rebuttal of Christopher Cutler’s and Mark Hamrick’s Dec. 1 guest column (“Animal lovers deserve the truth on GRU dental implant testing”) stating dental experiments used on dogs “are neither frivolous nor unnecessary, and are a key component of developing safe and effective dental procedures for humans.”

I am a licensed dental hygienist. Dental implants have been around for many, many years. They have become mainstream in treatment planning in the past 10 years. Each week in clinical practice, I see patients with dental implant success. I am one of them – I have an implant in my mouth I had done in 2011.

Dental implants have a 96 percent success rate. If they fail, usually it is because of a systemic disease or the patient was a bad candidate for implants (smoker, alcoholic, bone loss too far gone, etc). There is absolutely no reason for these tests to be done. What do you think you would gain from using a jawbone from a dog? Don’t you realize that dogs comprise an entirely different species, and their tissue and metabolism, among many other things, is different from ours?

Would you use your dog’s medication to treat your own health aliments? No? I didn’t think so. It is barbaric that animal testing is being used today.

Please, as a dental professional, I want to be informed of what researchers glean from these experiments. I would love to know.

Becky Leaphart

Johns Island, S.C.

Animal lovers deserve the truth on GRU dental implant testing

More

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 22:47

AP’s bias persists

Sun, 12/04/2016 - 18:09

Now the watchdogs bark