Pro-Test for Science - April 2009 - Animal Testing SAVES lives

[ConTamieNated]

If animal testing is necessary to save lives, and the death and suffering of an animal is an acceptable price to pay in order to save many.. Then why don't they test on humans? Why use and abuse others that have a close genetic resemblance to humans when they could just use the real thing?

If it's fine to do it to an animal then it should be fine for a human as well. Seriously, why not humans? What makes us so damn special that only our lives are precious?

[fighteightyfive]

Animal testing just makes things better.

[mszypul]

That might be a lie but a rat and a mouse is a very good test subject due to the close genetic resemblence to humans. I'm not going to list webpages here due to the fact that my original comments were concerning this unconvincing presentation. Next time you tell someone to do their research and provide sources of information, you make sure to look in the mirror when you say it. I'm finished talking to you cause there will be not end to this and you are not worth my time.

[speakingofresearch]

@mszypul you deserved your response when you decided to claim that a rat was a closer genetic resemblance to a human than a chimp. If someone calls you on a stupid comment don't tell them they're not doing their research.

[imofftheheeezy]

is this real life?

[NiceGuyCody]

Compare this form of protest vis-a-vis the pie-throwing, fake blood covered firebomb bullshit the Animal Rights cultists try to pass off as "peaceful".

[pinkskullsxxx1]

@MrWhateva2010 Inacurate. Not every medication in the world is tested by animals, many arent.Ther r lots of human volenteers who hav personaly made the choice to hav medications tested on themselves instead of animals. If we can test medications the better way, then why aren't we? We dont hav the right 2 just take control of these animals and do whatever we feel like doing with them. U could argue that lives r being saved, but we hav 2 remember that it is the animals' lives, not ours.

[stakor1]

If only 10% of the funding that goes to a.r. went to the alternative methods available nowdays we could have BETTER scientific results and zero suffering of animals. Come on guys wake up we're not in the 20's we have to move on. There are certain reasons that support animal reasearch: easier, quicker and less debatable publications that lead to more money and career expansions.

I'm not an extremist but a logical human being. At 2011 we have better choices than this one...

[LondonProphet]

@stakor1 Seems to be a misunderstanding here. Methods like cell cultures, computer modelling, populations studies etc. ARE being used in huge amounts (they outweigh the use of animals). However there is some research that we, as of yet, cannot replace with non-animal methods.

[stakor1]

Then we must first decide and justify about the ethics of this research. Then, we must weight the gains and the losses on an equal basis. Then, we must direct funds to explore other alternatives. And fourthly, we must make sure to provide all the adequate means to minimize the suffering of the animals.

In practice and in most cases non of these happen inside and outside labs. We both know it...

[NiceGuyCody]

@stakor1

"I'm not an extremist but a logical human being"

Nice to meet you. I'm Jesus Christ, Emperor of Mars.

[stakor1]

1) From an ethical perspective animal reserach CANNOT be justified even at 1%. If anyone disagrees i would be glad to hear the arguments

2) From a scientific perspective, animal research is full with flaws, dangers in forecasting effects to human and there are countless examples of drug disasters based on this.

3) From a legal perspective, there are not even the most basic laws in force for reducing the level of pain and stress for these animals

[pinkskullsxxx1]

when people say that animal testing is good because it saves many human lives, that is very hypocrytical (sorry about spelling). If saving someone's life is so important, then how come no one cares about the ANIMALS' lives?

[2138red]

im doing a paper on animal research for my english class. first i took the side of say no to animal research, because it is very horrible. then when i read more into it, animal research saves lives. Still i find it very cruel but yet very important. animal research helps find cures for horrible diseases and helps saves many lives.

[DramaSis123]

i wish i was there!U would b able 2 c me.i would b wavin my sign and chanting.anybody else would do that!Give me a thumbs up if so!wat state was this in?

[McRabbid9]

I'm fine with animal testing. I'm just uncomfortable with how scientists are portrayed in animal testing videos. Ruthless, cold-blooded monsters who openly abuse animals to release their frustrations and humilitate the animals.

[TheFiveMinuteWarning]

Bunnies are cute. Babies are cuter.

[TheFiveMinuteWarning]

Bunnies are cute. Babies are cuter.

[zKa0sz]

They should get a monkey in to test some new eyebrows

[sugoiheart]

For those opposed to all animal testing, please answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the following :-

1. Are you vegetarian?

2. Do you avoid buying leather shoes or clothes?

3. Would you allow yourself or a loved one to suffer or even die because the necessary treatment had been developed using laboratory animals?

If you answered 'Yes' to ALL of the above, then you are free from hypocrisy in your moral stance.

(Phil James, USA )

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@sugoiheart As humans do not benefit from animal 'tests' which do not protect us from harmful substances and as animal 'research' consistently fails to cure disease (many of which come from the animal 'tested' substances) it is self interested for people to be opposed to animal experimentation (vivisection)...unless you derive income, titles, status, publications etc from it (ie the supporters of pro-test)

[sciencenotrats]

I thought you were meant to be standing up for science. Animal experimentation is not science. It is not predictive, projectable, transferable, no laws can be derived from it. i look forward to the day when you stand up for science instead of your own careers, titles, income, status and that of your family and friends. For real science, not veterinary science for humans, try curedisease. net curedisease. com mrmcmed. org pcrm. org speakcampaigns. org vivisectionresearch. ca

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@sciencenotrats # "There is no laboratory method of inducing diabetes... which is exactly comparable to the clinical condition. At best we can get only crude approximations. The dangers of arguing from one species to another, or even from one strain to another of the same species are certainly not to be neglected."

(Dr F.G. Young, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London, Lancet, December 18 1948, pages 955-956.)

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@sciencenotrats # "Arguments based on the insulin requirements of the depancreatised dog and cat applied to human diabetes are quantitatively dangerous."

(Dr F. G. Young, D.Sc., PhD., F.R.S., British Medical Journal, November 17 1951, pages 1167-1168.)

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@sciencenotrats "The causes of diabetes mellitus remains unknown in both man and animals. In spite of certain species similarities, there are a number of important differences - differences in clinical manifestation, in aetological factors and in the liability to certain long-term complications of the disease."

(Dr Harry Keen, BSc, M.R.C.P., "Spontaneous Diabetes in Man and Animals", Veterinary Record, July 9 1960, page 557.)

[sciencenotrats]

Science is reliable, consistent, predictive, projectable, repeatable and verifiable. Laws can be derived from it. Just the opposite of animal experiments.“More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time.” Dr Beat Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences; 8:133, 1987 mrmcmed. org

[sciencenotrats]

@scourfish Not sure what your comment intended tio convey but evolution is the basis of the scientific anti animal experimentation argument. Mice and humans seperated 70 million years ago and primates 7.5 million and thats as close as you get in an animal therefore there is no animal which is a reliable model for a human. see "Animal Experimentation in Light of Evolution" by Dr Greek and Dr Shanks at curedisease. com To put DNA in perspective humans and cabbages have 50% DNA in common mrmcmedorg

[scourfish]

@sciencenotrats

All I'm saying is that the bibel is the one true word - Word with a capital D - of the lORD and because the world was made in seven days, there's absolutely no way that any animal could ever be related to any other animal and therefore, there could never ever be any common traits that could be exploited. Humans have lungs and breathe oxygen sir so why are we testing all of these James Cameron "The Abyss" type liquid oxygen solutions on them? Hail Jeezus the constable of heaven

[scourfish]

@sciencenotrats

Honestly, sir, if you just abndon your evil god hating homoseximal agenda sharing ways of evolution and accept creationism as god intends then your "animals aren't related to humans" argument is flawless hail satan oops I mean jesus amen

[UserShadow7989]

@sciencenotrats Your argument is flawed due to a basic misconception. Animal Research is a misnomer- in reality, it's to study the disease inside the animal (referring to medical testing, cosmetics testing is deplorable as it serves no purpose but making one look pretty). The only reason an animal is involved is that the virus must be interacting with a living creature's immune system/metabolism for us to learn how it acts. I'd like to point out that Insulin was invented through the use of AR.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@UserShadow7989 That would be useful except that the living system you are looking at is not predictive for humans, this is the fundamental, irreconcilable problem of animal experiments

[UserShadow7989]

@nomonkeymedforhumans It is not the living system that's important, but the way the virus acts and reacts. While there are differences in the systems, and thus, differences in how the virus acts, there are basic similarities in our immune systems. This may not provide all we need to counter the virus, but it gives us some understanding of how it works and leaves us something to build off of. If we did not have this basis, we would have nowhere to start and could only make random guesses.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@UserShadow7989 re insulin. this claim is often made, as always animals were used but a causal rel. can't be shown here, only a casual one. I'll provide some quotes...

"The scientists Banting and Best were incorrectly credited with the discovery of insulin."

(Dr M. Barron, "The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans Diabetes with Special Reference to Cases of Pancreatic Lithiasis", Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, November 5 1920.)

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@UserShadow7989 During the 1920s, the dog experiments performed by scientists Banting and Best were strongly criticised as:

"... a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments."

(Dr F. Roberts, "Insulin", British Medical Journal, 1922.)

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@UserShadow7989 "Unfortunately, the condition of a dog with a small but healthy part of his pancreas left is essentially different from that of a person suffering from diabetes... in human diabetes two factors are present: 1. an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and 2. the detrimental effect of improper diet."

(Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@UserShadow7989 "Dr Banting, Canada's medical hero, who is popular and erroneously credited with the discovery of insulin by extirpating the pancreases of thousands of dogs, did not cause diabetes, but stress."

(J.A. Pratt, "A Reappraisal of Research Leading to the Discovery of Insulin", Journal of the History of Medicine, Vol. 9, 1954, pages 281-289.)

[scourfish]

@nomonkeymedforhumans

Good job on citing articles that are between 50 and 80 years old, buddy, surely medicine has not made any significant scientific progress.

BTW, citing outdated articles is also what creationists do as well.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@scourfish

As humans and mice went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million not sure how they have becoem good models for us since 1920...thats around when insulin came out so thats when the quotes are form. 2009..."We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people." Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.

[scourfish]

@nomonkeymedforhumans

We can both treat and cure cancer in people.

If you're against animal research, the best position you can take is "for reasons of personal ethics, I choose to oppose experimentation on animals," because coming to the party with a middle-school-level understanding of modern biology and using cherry-picked quotes that you neither researched nor fully comprehend gives others the impression that you re a colossal idiot.

[sciencenotrats]

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4 What cures?

[sciencenotrats]

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals.

Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78. If you want kids to be saved demand human science not veterinary science. curedisease. net vivisectionresearch. ca

[thrashitupX]

@sciencenotrats I totally couldn't agree more. I mean everyone knows that the rhesus gene (the little + or - next to A or B or O) so vital to blood transfusion wasn't discovered by experimentation on monkeys, and that the controlled breedings needed to produce genetically homogeneous lines (its called a control in an experiment, you'll learn that when you take your first science class) are perfectly ethical in humans.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@thrashitupX Any similarity which is of benefit to humans is knowledge arrived at retrospectively, not predictively. To refer only to useful similarities is cherry picking the data rather than looking at whole or random sample of date to determine predictiveness

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@thrashitupX karl landsteiner discovered blood groups and how important this was in transfusions, could not have been done via animal experiments

[NebulousGummyBear]

Animals are just like humans. People die because of cancer and other health problems. But guess what? Its the circle of fucking life. Be happy they are out of their misery and are in a better place. Humans only think they have the right to animal test but no they absolutely do not. God didn't put us on Earth to harm nature.

[Writersblock39]

@NebulousGummyBear You'd think differently if your child was dying a slow painful death and you knew this research could save their life.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

@Writersblock39 as my child is not a rat, dog or monkey id prefer valid research. see curedisease. net for some

[jongsin]

@Writersblock39 Research using animals is rubbish we have a completely different anatomy from animals so results found from these tests are invalid. I mean if you are going to test animals, at least allow funds to be spent on good food and water, open space, people to visit and possibly pet them so they dont become depressed, conditions can be avoided/improved to increase quality of life which every living thing deserves because in all reality we're in the same boat, we all only have 1 life :(

[Writersblock39]

@jongsin Actually testing on chimps provides plenty of information due to their closeness to us on a genetic scale. So...if a chimp has to go to save a human then so be it.

[mszypul]

@Writersblock39 Who assigned you with the task of determining who gets to go and who gets to stay?

[Writersblock39]

@mszypul No one, but if my childs life was on the line I'd throw every fucking animal in the world into a blender to save them.

[mszypul]

@Writersblock39 No one, exactly! Plus, throwing every animal in the world into a blender would not save your child. Neither would testing on animals. Check out a two-part video on here named "Animal Testing - Good Science? Or Pointless Cruelty?". And on a side note, humans are more closely related to rats on a genetic scale, not chimps. Do your research before throwing your fellow earthlings into a blender. Good luck.

[dan90555]

@mszypul Thats a lie... Humans are not more closely related to rats than chimps! please post where you obtained this false information and stop spreading information that is just plain FALSE. So you do YOUR research before posting away on sites without knowing the facts. How can we be closer to rats than our ape ancestors!?! That just screams ridiculous besides me knowing that thats rubbish.

[dan90555]

@mszypul

and you missed the point of what he was saying - his child means more to him than animals.. not that literally throwing every animal in a blender would help... testing on animals might well save his child though if something was wrong.

[mszypul]

@Writersblock39 There is also a five-part documentary named "The human cost of animal testing". It is full of facts and an eye opener. 

[Writersblock39]

@mszypul I'll look into it. I like knowing both sides of the arguement.

[dan90555]

@Writersblock39 His claim that humans are closer the rats than chimps is completely false.. and ridiculous when thought about for 2 seconds.. its like saying im closer related to my cousin than my brother which is mad.

[Writersblock39]

@dan90555 I'm just done arguing with these people, they're morons.

[kittypr1nc3ss]

@jongsin

if it is a mammal, it has the same basic organs.

[scourfish]

If it meant saving one child from any terminal disease, I would violently strangle a puppy in front of a busload of kindergartners.

[sciencenotrats]

@scourfish Unless the child is a dog it will be impossible to save his life via animal experiments. in fact the substances which caused the illness probably passed animal 'tests' and the consistent failure to cure the illness is also ndue to animal 'research'. "Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984. curedisease. net mrmcmed. org

[scourfish]

@sciencenotrats

Besides the fact that I was speaking in terms of idealism, I'd like to point out that anybody with an agenda can cherry pick a research paper. It isn't hard.

You will, for most of your life as a resident of the first world, will enjoy the many benefits that modern medicine has offered, and take it for granted, just as others have.

Of course, given how recently you have registered this account, there is a high probability you are a troll. If that's the case, try harder.

[sciencenotrats]

@scourfish According to the US FDA 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products" As animal tests are wrong 92% of the time what would modern medicine have to do with animal experiments? They are a legal not a scientific device. Also how is violently strangling a puppy in front of kindergardners idealistic? mrmcmed. org

[scourfish]

@sciencenotrats

Well it sure is a damn good thing the FDA is there to regulate all up in this praise jeebus hallelujahs!

P.S. I've seen better trolling in my sleep

[Writersblock39]

@scourfish Amen to the strangling puppies 

[nervousneuron]

No more threats!

[davemandoo2]

Yes! I test my homemade weapons on animals all the time. The only problem is animals don't cry and don't have souls, so you can't really tell if the pain is optimal or whether the soul is completely destroyed.

[jedihunter176]

People need to know that animals that have been tested on are heroes, not victims.

[Cruelty2animalssucks]

@jedihunter176 Are you insane?

[jedihunter176]

@Cruelty2animalssucks Are YOU?

[Cruelty2animalssucks]

@jedihunter176 No it's not me that makes stupid comments saying that animals that have been tested on are heroes not victims. Of course they are victims, they are not there by choice you know and what they have done to them is absolutely disgusting and on top of that it is bad science!! but you fools havent got a clue!

[jerrythefishy]

the guy at the beginning of the video has freaky eyebrows