Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Idiocy. Are you volunteering?
Are you? Umm...no, of course not! A human, experiemented on? Never!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What do commercial cosmetics have to do with medical research? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
I know cosmetics have nothing to do with medical research, but they are still tested on animals-I suppose you support this, too?
Originally posted by autumn dreams
Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS?
In the most simple terms - to protect human life. You have a potential vaccine that seems to work in a test tube, but you aren't sure what will happen when you inject it into a body with all it's variable. Inject it into a human before the problems and risks are discovered and worked out, and you risk that life. Thus you test it on animals first - it protects human lives.
Usually once it seems safe after animal research it will enter into the "human" research phase, and due to the animal contribution by this point it should have been evolved to a safe level.
Of course, there is said to be human testing being carried out by unscrupulous labs - the controversy over the Big pharma companies in Africa. If true it just high lights the fact that going straight from theory to human testing is far to dangerous.
What about cosmetics? Have you ever seen a puppy dog apply lipstick or lipbalm? Have you ever seen a rat use dishwashing detergent? These products are tested on animals-purfumes are put in the animals eyes, because a precious human might be so stupid as to spray it in their eyes and have a reaction. HUMANS use lipstick and HUMANS wash dishes, so test these cosmetics and household cleaners on HUMANS-don't inflict pain on an animal, especially when they won't even use a detergent.
Now this I don't agree with. I do not support animal testing in the cosmetic research sector. However I believe there is a fundamental difference between the medical research sector and the cosmetic research sector.
Originally posted by autumn dreams1. So you like to make a big noise about how wrong animal testing is and that humans should be used instead, but wouldn't back it up by being the subject? Which humans should we use for the preliminary experiments to test proof of principal or safety of a therapeutic then? Elderly? Invalids? How about a particular ethnic group?
Are you? Umm...no, of course not! A human, experiemented on? Never!I know cosmetics have nothing to do with medical research, but they are still tested on animals-I suppose you support this, too?
You do realise that in the drug discovery process once the drug is deemed safe and a therapeutic index has been determined then human clinical
2. They're two entirely different things, they aren't comparable - why would supporting one be indicative of support of the other. Medical research is for the pursuit of knowledge about disease in order to find ways of treating the disease - do you realise this? Have you ever used cosmetics?
Originally posted by autumn dreams
[COLOR=seagreen]Have you seen a bunny rabbit with chicken pox, or measles? No-so why test drugs on animals that will cure an illness the animal will never get? Why not test drugs meant for HUMANS on HUMANS?
ex. Bacitracin, which I believe was tested on animals, Is availible in forms for both humans and animals to reduce infections. Animals often benefit as much as humans do.
Secondly. Animal testing is more than cosmetics. Animals are in many ways so similar to humans. If you got soap in your eye...are you in such terrible pain that you cant bear to live any more? How about if someone put lipstick on you?
The point is, sometimes drugs/treatmnents have unforseen consequences due to new chemical combinations etc. If a lipsitic will unknowingly burn your face off, you'd fell pretty bad no matter whose face you melted, but better a pigs than a humans. After animal testes are done, THEN human tests are conducted.
Sorry to bump this up and keep us all off topic, but this artical was printed in my local paper a few days ago, and I thought it was worth a look.
More than 2.7 million animals were used for scientific experiments in Victoria in a single year, new figures reveal.
Testing on animals rose dramatically in 2004, the most recent data shows.
Experiments included "burning or scalding" 66 sheep and "interference of the central nervous system" of 6500 animals including 15 cats, five pigs and nine rabbits.
Some 2.1 million chickens were used in a project to test a vaccine for Newcastle disease, which poses a significant risk to the poultry industry.
In 2004, almost 400,000 animals died or had to be put down after tests, including 18 koalas, 37 possums and gliders, 75 cats, 254 dogs and 33 horses.
Monkeys, guineapigs, birds and rabbits were also killed as part of scientific experiments.
Genetic engineering tests were also carried out on almost 40,000 animals.
Animals were injected with disease and infection, electrocuted and exposed to radiation and toxins.
RSPCA president Hugh Wirth described animal testing as "barbaric" and said the RSPCA opposed the use of live animals for scientific experiments.
"The only experiments we condone are those that are absolutely essential, and that there is no possibility of conducting the experiment without live animals, and that the experiment has been properly assessed and evaluated by an ethics committee," Dr Wirth said.
He said Victoria had the highest number of institutions that used animals for scientific testing.
In 2003, 488,808 animals were used for scientific experiments in Victoria.
Even without the 2.1 million chickens, the number of animals used in tests in 2004 blew out to 603,043.
More than 100 primates, including baboons, macaques and marmosets, were used in experiments in 2004. The average is 68.
There were 97 institutions which carried out animal tests in Victoria in 2004, including universities and hospitals.
The names of institutions that conduct animal testing have never been made public and can not be obtained under Freedom of Information.
A spokesman for the Department of Primary Industries, Jeremi Moule, said each year the department audited a third of such organisations, and it was a serious offence to conduct unapproved tests.
"Every project must be approved by each organisation's animal ethics committee, which is made up of a vet, researcher or teacher, an animal welfare representative and an independent person," Mr Moule said.
But Dr Wirth said since the law was passed in 1986 not one organisation has been prosecuted for animal cruelty.
Animal Liberation Victoria spokesman Paul Crossley said ALV did not support animal testing under any circumstances.
"I'm concerned there are major scientific flaws with using animals for tests for drugs that will be used on humans," Mr Crossley said.
"We would be interested to know who's conducting what."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19734661%255E2862,00.html
Why the need to electrocute or scald an animal?
Perhaps to find a way to treat PEOPLE who have been electrocuted or scalded. There are reasons for any experiment that's conducted. I've heard of these ethics comittees. I was in a class in college and we couldn't be taught proper lab procedure with animals because the ethics comittee was too slow. Didn't finish reviewing the proposed procedures before the semester ended. (It was the first year the class was offered).
Face it, Animal research is beneficial to human life. You can try to put animal life on par with human, but most people don't buy that. If it comes down to me or some animal, I choose me. (me and a member of my family, I'd probably sacrifice myself for them)
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. If that were the case you'd still be using leeches to help you get rid of that fever.
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?
Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.
I'm a tad confused as to how that's a "take that!"
Originally posted by The Omega
Well... Stem-cell research touches on the borders of ethics. Sometimes it takes a little time for people to get used to new ethics... New ideas.is it Jehovas Withnesses who refuse to take blood-fusions? And it wasn't until 1992 that the Catholic Church recalled its ban on Galileo Galilei from the 17th century, thus accepting that the Earth revolves around the Sun...
So sometimes it takes a little... time...
I thought it was just that they declared him innocent or cleared his charges.
Originally posted by autumn dreamsPuerile Luddite.
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.
Yep. Next time a see some old man shaking so bad he can't hold a cup of tea or some sad looking person paralysed from the neck down, or somebody suffering from a degenerative muscle disease that will kill them by the age of 25, I am going to go up to them, poke them and say "you weak willed wimps."
I mean, it's not like humanity is plagued by things worse then headaches, is it? It's not like stem cell research and animal research has the potential to save people from some of the cruelest, most debilitating illnesses. I mean gee, they should grin through the pain and just be happy knowing that while we could be working towards a cure we aren't. For the sake of the rats, which are treated better then wild rats anyway.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Puerile Luddite.
My sentiments exactly.
Originally posted by autumn dreams
What do people years ago have to treat illness? Did they have painkillers? Were they able to pop a pill like we do nowadays? Oh, I have a headache, I'll take a pill. Have a tummy ache? Take a pill. People years ago put up with pain. Now we have become so weak we must torture animals just to find a pill to take away our poor headaches?Geez, what a bunch of wimps we are.
You are not required to participate at all in medicine.
There are pleny of colonies where no scientific progress beyond metallurgy is used. ✅
Bump in regards to Missouri's Constitutional Amendment 2 Stem Cell inititive!
So would folks vote for or against this amendment?
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Originally posted by autumn dreams
But, if given the chance, they COULD become a life. That is what I dislike about it-the fact that they have the potential to become something wonderful. I consider an embryo to be human, to be worthy of respect. I have thought a lot of about stem cell research, and what it could do, but I cannot agree with using human embryos for it.
No, no they won't. We don't have the technology to correctly clone a human. Cloned embryos would never get past the embryonic stage. In fact, it's be pretty cruel to the new 'lifeform' to try and force it into growing into a human. It'd probably be a stillborn mutant.