HMMM I wonder if Humans would feel the same if another Species used us for experimentation, for there research.The Germans, and Japaness, did Human Experiments during War time, and made some the biggiest advancements in Medical research for there Time, if we want the knowledge it is us who should pay the price! we should not do it at the expense of Animals, we would not want someone or something else Experimenting on us for there gaines.
@grndcontrol07 yes the germans set up death camps where experiments were being conducted on humans! are you seriously advocating this? maybe you should be the first resident. people like you make me wanna puke
It's really pretty pathetic that you have to resort to name calling. You don't even know me so calling me an "idiot" just shows your maturity lever and what type of raising you received as a child. In addition, to say that a mouse doesn't have a complex nervous system and therefore doesn't have a state of awareness that allows it to feel pain sounds pretty uneducated to me.
Actually I am an Aerospace Engineer from Arizona State University. What educational background do you have? Unfortunately, the "scientists" perform experiments on mammals with complex nervous systems, not on insects. I will not argue with you, there's no point.
The Final Solution: Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids and forced to participate. While this is ocurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured.. They will be told from the start that as soon as their last remaining loved one is dead that they will go through the process themselves. This should be done to everyone and their family members who profit from this. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
1. The pie chart shows the fraction of experiments involving pain for animals - not which have the ability to feel pain i.e. making an incision without a pain killer would be in the red (7%).
2. I'm not sure what evidence is lacking? Are you denying the role of animal research is any of the benefits? Questioning the regulations?
3. MOST biologists don't do in vivo studies - they use computers, cell cultures, MRIs etc. There is still some research for which we have no alternative
@LondonProphet 1. How would the "scientists" know which experiments result in pain? Does the "scientist" ask the rabbit if his eyes hurt or does he call on a rabbit speaking translator to ask the rabbit that question?
2. What evidence? The one that the "scientists" made up to sugarcoat things? There is more damage than good from animal research.
@LondonProphet 3. It is the "scientists" moral duty to find an alternatives first. There is nothing ethical in inflicting pain on one species for the benefit of another species.
There is a two-part video on YouTube named "Animal Testing - Good Science? Or Pointless Cruelty?". Watch them fully.
i forgot one more thing. Why would he bring statistics on our meat consumption when this speech is supposed to be convincing us that animal research is beneficial? Meat consumption and animal testing are two different issues not relating to each other. Was he trying to tell us that those opposing animal research should focus our efforts somewhere else? Like I said, those are different issues and both need to be addressed separetely.
I actually tried watching this video with an open mind to really understand the opposite side of the argument but this speech is not convincing at all. In fact, with the repeated use of "happy" and no evidence for many of his claims make his speech a failure. I'm gonna see if anyone else has pro-testing arguments that are convincing.
@jurassicturd3 Really? What is your source of information? This poor presentation? All I see on TV is commercials paid by attorneys saying "If you've taken this medication and had a heart attack, please call this number". The commercials exist because the medications were tested on animals and the animals reacted well to them. But once approved by the FDA, people had adverse effects. There are many who experimented on animals who now come out and admit that animal tests do more damage than good
@mszypul Do you not realise that if a drug has beed FDA approved it also had to go through extensive human trials AFTER the animal testing?!? If the drug causes adverse effects then its shelved! The reason those adverts exist is not because of animal testing you twit but because every human reacts differently and the sue culture in america is out of control.
@dan90555 You know I actually composed a reply but then I realized that anyone who resorts to pathetic name calling is not worth to have discussions with.
@mszypul Would you have preferred 'you fool!" ? Same thing really.
Well you already couldnt resist the urge to reply back anyway.. so why not carry on and give me this reply that youve held back. Saying they have complex nervous systems is a bit ambiguous.. Considering the VAST majority of research is done on mice which do not have incredibly complex nervous systems unlike primates, most research is being done on an animal with limited capacity to 'feel'.
@mszypul It's not like the "scientist" can ask the animal "Do you feel pain?" - the fact you say something like that tells me you have hardly any scientific education or knowledge and are that typical person arguing from the emotional stand point. If you did youd know that neuroscientists can more certainly determine if pain is being experienced. But again, that doesnt mean it 'feels' pain on the level we do! A flipping insect cant 'feel' like we do! It doesnt have the capacity...
And the claim that "scientists" don't want to test on stressed animals and that they would switch to alternatives shall they be available and be "effective"...no they wouldn't! Scientists are being taught in school to use animals from the moment they perform their first dissection. Asking a "scientist" to use alternative methods is like asking them to go back to school. This guy's claim here has no evidence and it even sounds ridiculous and naive.
That pie graph showing the fraction of animals that do or do not feel pain...how could something like that even be documented? It's not like the "scientist" can ask the animal "Do you feel pain?". The animal's body movements (or the lack of) and sounds clearly send a message that the animal is in pain, physically, emotionally or both.
Modern day medicine is bullshit, we should focus on the preventive method- a healthy life, also; natural medicine is much better than the typical one + its cheaper... A friend of mine was dying from brain tumors, the doctors told him he was going to die, he went to a natural hospital (he was treated with mud baths, and different natural medicines) and now is in a perfect state with no colateral damage...
@LondonProphet Why would i lie lol, google cases, you'll find many of them all over the web, praying has caused people to get rid of many terminal diseases to... its all in the mind.
What the speaker does not explain to us is why we have the right to test on animals and not on himself. The results would definately be more accurate. And since the arguments in favor of AT have to do with results, whats better than testing on humans! I'm sure he can be the first volunteer since he cares so much about cures... PROTEST are the perfects subjects for testing...
Look at the video called Animal Testing - Good Science? Or Pointless Cruelty? Part 1 Do the animals look happy? No! They are going through much pain, slowly dying from toxins that are put into them. How does that seem right to you?
@Taylor Swift 1OF3 Animal Testing - Good Science? or Pointless Cruelty? and also The human cost of Animal Testing for all the speciesists out there!....Their is so much info and videos around to expose the true nature of animal testing and all their barbaric tests! ...These innocent animals are being, poisoned, burnt, starved and mutilated everyday!.....Horrific tortures they are subjected to ...all in the name of so called science!!
Haven't you ever seen the laboratorys and what they do to the animals, your trying to make it look better than it is, the animals are crowded and deppresed fighting for their lives.I would turn you into one of those poor animals if I could!
@TaylorSwift1OV3 I think this is the crucial difference. I HAVE seen animals in laboratories across the US and the UK, and I have never seen crowded or depressed animals. I see most animals housed in pairs or more, with plenty of space to move around, and a team of animal care technicians who do all they can to enrich the lives of animals while they remain in labs.
No Need for ANIMALS testings to cure or treat health issues. There are other things such as NATURAL REMEDIES. The more drugs, the more health issues. How do humans not understand this. There are way too many dumbnuts walking without the consciousness. I hope this world blows up quick. Tired of dealing with these wanna be GODS. Secondly, the GOD Source would never allow for such works. IT works against its own creation. It is vibrating and working at the lowest of all levels. .... I SAY BAN IT.
its so human that people will kill millions of animals each year for silly things like cosmetics. more than half of the medicine tested on animals does not work on humans and many of it that is passed through inspection ends up killing more people instead. We have tested on animals for cancer for more than 40 years and are we any farther to finding a cure?? no, animal testing is just stupid.
Its easy to stand there with the moral high ground and reject animal testing, but when your ill and need life saving treatment derived from animal research you can be sure almost everyone wouldn't turn it down...
Once there are viable alternatives, it will be abandoned. There may be cases where a treatment has been stalled, but overall medical science wouldn't be where it is it, let alone have started! Would you rather no AR, or potentially life saving cures for you and those close to you...
@dan90555 Clearly you've been desensitized and are lacking empathy and compassion. Great argument you have there, but what about the emotional treatment of the animals? If an animal cries out in pain or reacts un-cooperatively because it's scared, is it "viable" to sit there and beat the shit out of it? You're only skimming the surface of the treatment. Go learn a little more. Oh. And there are viable replacements. Animal testing is cheaper. In a money-hungry world I suppose it's ideal...
@oliviamariesiragusa I have a huge amount of empathy and compassion.. more of the dying humans on this planet first though. Animals then come after depending on their similarities to humans, capacity for higher function.. I do not value a insects life more than a humans... like i do not value a mouse life more than say an ape. There are NOT alternatives that are proper replacements yet.. do not try to fool yourself into thinking there are. Maybe you should learn a little more.
@oliviamariesiragusa And to answer you - No I do not think beating an animal because it is uncooperative is acceptable treatment. That doesnt mean I dont think animal testing shouldnt be done, just that it should be tightly checked and monitored. Id also go as far as to say Id support something to give the 'great apes' more 'rights' so to speak and not test on them as I consider them to have a high enough moral value to think its not acceptable to use them. Mice though do not have a high value..
@dan90555 I want ot highlight though that I do not then think the 'great apes' have the same moral value and status as humans, just that maybe their capacity to 'feel' is not too far from ours and so should be assigned a greater value that would eliminate them as possible lab animals.
And if there was replacements out there then theyd be used. Using animals isnt ideal and if a scientist could get better significant results using another method then they would.
@dan90555 that makes no sense. for starters, the moral value is not relevant. they feel pain for reasons no longer viable in a world as advanced as ours. all animals feel pain regardless of moral standing. and second, why should an animal be put through that much pain in order to cure a disease that we cause ourselves? want to lower cancer rates? stop eating shitty food and smoking for starters. animals react differently to chemicals because they have entirely diff physiological makeups.
@oliviamariesiragusa Cancer will occur eventually regardless of whether you eat shitty food or smoke unless something else gets your first.. and its not just that that causes it... do you know much about cancer biology? And your right animals do react differently.. thats why scientists put a lot of effort into making animal models.. lab animals that are created specifically to model our diseases as similarly as possible. Advances in MS for instance came from such a model.
@oliviamariesiragusa And all animals do not 'feel' pain the same... they might be able to sense the pain, but how aware you are of the pain varies a lot and many just respond to the stimuli.. very different to say the response an ape gives to pain or a human.
Secondly why shouldnt an animal that is limited in capacity to 'feel' like we do not be used in order to help cure us?We eat animals to provide nutrition and have done so for millions of yrs.. something that was essential to our evolution
@dan90555 Wow. I've done so much research on this subject and I happen to know that the animals' nervous systems are only similar to ours in that they are just as equipped to feel pain. AND, if an animal feels differently than we do, why would they be reliable research in the first place? I'm sorry, but an animal that only "responds to stimuli" is probably not going to display the same level of pain that would be experienced in humans which is why Britain is recalling a new drug every other day.
@oliviamariesiragusa I didnt say they arent equipped to feel pain.. I said they arent equiped to be as aware consciously as us. Apes are more well equipped for this and thats displayed in their brain structure and actions. Mice are not... We when treating diseases etc are looking at the physiology for which mice are sufficient a model.. we dont do complex brain chemistry experiments on mice because they dont have the capacity to be a good model for us.
@dan90555 and furthermore, there are debates as to whether animals are just an evolutionary necessity for us. some say we aren't even built the way a real carnivore is in order to handle the capacity of digesting meat. but that aside, if you look into the cultures of people that kill purely to survive, there is always a regard for what the animal feels. a quick kill and it's over. that's a lot different than torturing an animal to cure a cancer we could probably naturally drown out ourselves.
@oliviamariesiragusa We arent carnivores... we dont only consume meat... we are omnivores and that is why we as a species exhibit traits for both meat eating and plant eating... as a result we cannot be the best at both.. herbivores have evolved to be brilliant plant eaters, carnivores to be brilliant meat eaters.. we being omnivores are good enough at both but not brilliant.. thats the trade off. And you cant drown out cancer.. its mainly a disease due to old age.. not like a disease like CF
Fact is without animals our understanding of biology would be very limited. Hopefully, with recent advances with lab/organ on a chip tech we can do away with the practise. I look at it as a means to an end.. it is necessary so that one day it wont be. Advancing computers and growing biological knowledge will allow virtual modelling. And considering your stance, I hope out of principal you refuse treatments derived from animals otherwise thats hypocritical
as long as it's okay to use them for medical research, their being used for commercial product testing will also always be allowed. I'm sorry but "fact is", people don't need to eat half the shit they do or use half the body enhancing products they do either. No one can rough it anymore because everyone likes having the things they want handed on a platter. As long as there is one, there is the other. I don't believe that's reason enough to use them for testing anymore whether it helps or not.
@oliviamariesiragusa Well I think we will have to just accept we disagree. I do think you can have one without the other, and think there should be. But like Ive said I really do hope you do also apply your belief when it does inevitably come to you needing something thats been developed by animal testing. Same applies to everyday products that arent 'needed' but contain animal parts.
If it helps though Id say within 30-40 years it wont be needed and when that time comes ill certainly support it
@dan90555 nutrition and testing Raid, Pledge, cosmetics, and an endless list of other commercial products are two very different things. the vivisectors themselves will even tell you that it is an unreliable source of medical research. the only reason it's there is to serve as a scapegoat for future lawsuits. when the drug inevitably creates different, and potentially harmful, effects in a human, the companies have a back up plan in order to avoid being shut down.
@oliviamariesiragusa And sorry for the third post but can I say I do not really agree with animal testing for items I consider a luxury... cosmetics, Pledge etc as you mention are not life saving.. I define a BIG difference between animals used to develop medical cures and those for make-up etc... the UK has banned that kind of use anyway...
I see you have heart bypass operations listed there. That's the only one I caught because I stopped watching your stupid argument. BUT, heart bypass operations could have been legitimized MUCH earlier on and saved more lives back when the idea was even suggested but it wasn't because it was continually performed on animals not conducive to the same anatomy of human beings. The studies kept failing and the procedure was withheld for decades. Animals are genetically different.
@crxtech1 Yeah.. tested to find out the problem... but then when it comes to trying to cure the problem, Id rather nt be the lab rat for the first trials. Id likely die, or end up worse or something.
Do I take it then that when you are ill and are offered treatment, you will research how it was derived and refuse it then if any animals were at all used? If someone you loved was in that situation, would you tell its wrong to take the treatment because animals were used?
@crxtech1 here is the thing next time you get sick don't go to a Hospital or a clinic or a Dr office because 99% of drugs out there was not possible without animal testing... further more people like you will always be against animal testing until you or your family needs a drug to save you lives
@crxtech1 What a pile of rubbish. How do you know if a medical treatment will be effective? It has to go through the animal process first. Humans and mice share 80% of genetic characteristics and it is thanks to medical studies on animals that we can save many human lives, on both testing and treating.
@cecerchio You do not know what you are talking about, 100% of treatments have to be re-tested on humans after animals because animal testing is not reliable.
@crxtech1 Absolutely it cannot be considered 100% reliable. But before a treatment can be considered safe for human test it has to go through the animal process. Even human twins, who share the same DNA, can respond differently to certain substances. This is due to history (previous diseases, lifestyle, eating habits, etc..) and especially the interaction between genotype and environmental factors (phenotype) that makes each of us unique individuals.
quite honestly this speech seemed very well though but hes missing the big picture animal testing is cruel theirs no well scientist take care of them is all good now in days our generation ignores the big picture the unfairness the cruelty that surrounds us no animal should be treated like they do in research labs although i love his speech he brings out good points but animal testing should not even exist
The most basic reason that i won't consider my views (in which you are right) is the fact that there is NOT even the minimu ethical justification for this. I would greatly consider any argument you may provide though.
After and supposing the ethics are OK, then i would weight the possible gains against the level of suffering on an EQUAL BASIS. Unfortunately also here the result is negative for a.r. Even judgung it alone the flaws are too many for continuing this practice in our days
Your reply clearly shows your close mindedness - you won't change your views regardless of what is said.
I would like to think that if someone showed me enough evidence that the earth was flat (clear proof of big alien experiment with crazy light illusions or whatever) then I'd like to think i'd consider the evidence.
Either from a scientific or an ethical perspective a.r. is unjustifiable. No matter what you say in the video you cannot prove that the earth is flat because it is not. Instead of wasting your time in this, why don't you do some real scientific research with methods not based in a scientific practice full of flaws?
@thestreetsempty, I think you misunderstand epidemiology. Yes it's used, yes it's important in helping to discover risk factors. But no, it doesn't tell you a thing about **how** a disease affects a living system (human or animal). Thus it cannot help create a treatment. Epidemiology might help us to see that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, but it does not explain, or help treat, suffererers who have never smoked a cigarette in their life.
Everyone: please research animal research. Not by the peddlers. By true, objective research into its supposed relevance and what they are actually "researching".
watch?v=3YkWstQgcmE
- If this comment is deleted, then the uploader has something to hide and isn't being intellectually honest. Something you'd hope those in the medical field would have respect for.
@thestreetsempty Wow you tried to put the poster on the spot so you wouldn't get your comment removed lol. Go do your own research. I mean subjective research for and against. Don't just look up the things that pertain to how you feel about the situation. Get all sides, every explanation, any and all aspects. Then make your decision. Its called thinking critically not emotionally.
@raventakayama I have researched. You try it. Go to the source: ex-vivisection scientists and other biologists. Nonhuman animal research is unreliable. Therefore, it is unnecessary and cruel. All the "medical marvels" due to animal research, were coincidences. Any other animal would give different results, thus we would feel differently about each treatment tested. Look it up. Also: YOU need to research, as anyone who does ends up feeling the same way. It's mainly for cosmetics and military.
@thestreetsempty What I'm saying is have you researched both sides. And I never agreed with cosmetic research. That's strictly big business I'm usually anti-big business and I don't support it. The research I'm talking about is based upon medicine or understanding genetics. And the vast majority of scientific findings were accidental, or coincidences so to speak. That's science. The scientific method is made for trial and error until you get the desired result. That's perfectly normal.
@raventakayama When lives are destroyed, human and nonhuman, it is inexcusable and should not be considered appropriate. Human beings are not the center of the universe, nor is our perception.
You're saying have I? That doesn't make sense. But yes, I have. You haven't.
If you're for animal research, you're for big-corp.
Do we need to gut open someone to understand genetics? After all we know already and could use models?
I understand your position and respect it. But I disagree.
@thestreetsempty The genetic aspect doesn't involve "gutting". However physiological responses may need surgical procedures. I understand the the fact that all living things live and breathe and think at some level. The same could be said of microorganism, but we enjoy out sour cream and antibiotics because of research on them. Many diseases were successfully combated due to animal research and the creation of vaccines. Such as polio vaccine which was created from rhesus monkeys.
@raventakayama lmao, look up the polio controversy. Dude, this is an old hat for me. Go research or something. I'm not interested in your justifications for bad science.
@thestreetsempty The polio vaccine has worked for years and is extremely viable. People within the scientific community know this. Bad science is your opinion. The members of the human genome project wouldn't think it was bad science. Genetic experimentation on animals laid the ground work for the HGP. The HGP is now being used to predict breast cancer, MM, and many other genetic based diseases. So bad science? Sure if you believe breast cancer research is a hoax and so on.
@raventakayama And you didn't look it up. If it were any other animal, it would have rendered different results, and we never would have used it. We lucked out. But it should have been performed on HUMAN SUBJECTS. See, this is the problem you people have getting through your skulls. Animal research is unreliable. This is why it is bad science. A human and rat and pig and monkey are different. Even chimps and humans are too different for accurate results. It is bad science. You are a drone.
@thestreet Polio vaccine? Several animals were used in order to find that vaccine. Its not like we magically picked the right animal the 1st time. Most experiments or ideas for experiments are repeated time and time and time again. To say we missed something is usually false. Things may be postponed by the lack of results, but that chapter in experimentation will be revisited again and again by others. Experiments have to be able to be reproduced by others in order to be deemed an experiment.
@thestreetsempty cont' AND human research is unreliable as well. Most research projects are simply stabs in the dark. Many findings are accidental. Humans are often used in hypersensitivity research and those results are often misread, unreliable or irrelevant to the population as a whole. It happens in ALL forms of research, there's no denying that. But does that mean we should just stop researching? No. A 1 in 1000 successful experiment is worth it in the area of medical research.
@raventakayama Nothing you just said at all justifies animal research. You're making excuses for how it sucks, while admitting it sucks, while saying it's awesome. Go eat some babies or whatever.
@thestreetsempty No, I'm telling you the nature of science because you clearly don't understand it. How can you judge science when you lack an understanding of it? That is the true question here. You say the results suck in animal testing. I say the results suck in ALL experimentations. If we found + results for everything right away, Nobel Prizes would be everywhere. Fact is science is messy, but that doesn't mean we should STOP. You haven't provided a legitimate reason to stop animal testing.
@raventakayama You're justifying bad science, because you believe in like like a good little zealot. You aren't taking into account that it isn't reliable and with human subjects is much more reliable, almost 100%. Bad science like this costs lives - human and nonhuman. You think it's perfectly okay to torture and kill animals and people, for something that may be 40 - 70% accurate, depending on the coincidental results. You need to research all sides. And stop with the belief perseverance shit.
This is the point: it is bad science. It harms all life. The medical field needs to progress. Big-corp sucks. You think you're being objective and intellectual. You are being very socially constructedish. Go research and stop being defensive about something that harms all of us. And if you want to be taken seriously, then actually be a good little fake sciency person, and read up on the issues.
@thestreetsempty More reliable? 100%? See comments like that help me to understand you knowledge of experimentation. There's no 100% reliability in experimentation. In certain cases humans are as uncompilable as any animal. For example the monogamy gene. Some humans express this gene some don't. There's lower mammals who also express this gene. Experimentation on those mammals lead to the discovery of this gene in humans. Do you not know the complexity of science and experimentation?
@raventakayama Epidemiology is more reliable than vivisection. I said almost 100% especially in comparison to vivisection. You did not read, you do not research, you suffer from a '50s mentality and belief perseverance. You don't care about the cost of life, human and nonhuman. You're typical. Be more objective. Research this issue, then I'll give you the time of day. Oh, and read wtf I write next time.
@thestreet Using a notation such as 100% even in the sense of it being ALMOST 100% still reveals that you have a lack of scientific understanding. Almost 50% would be a better estimate in this situation and even that's pushing it. Science is imperfect. There's no perfect form or way to do any of these things so scientist often do them all... Continue...
@thestreet You're to short sighted. Think about it. How do we know which medications to use on sick and injured animals? Animal research. How do we cultivate vaccines for mass production? Using animals. We didn't use the animals to make the vaccines. We used humans to make them and animals to multiply them. There's far more to animal research than cutting them open so lets not narrow the spectrum here. Many rehabilitation techniques have come from studying cat vertebral injuries. Think please.
@raventakayama For medicine to benefit HUMAN BEINGS, Epidemiology is more reliable than vivisection. Again, you're saying animal research sucks, and are saying that is okay. lmao.
There is a difference between "to" and "too".
Those were all coincidences, depending upon animal. As already stated. Yes, including you little wrist-happies' beloved polio retort. You need to research. Oh, wait. I was gonna ignore you, because you haven't done shit but fail to justify what you don't understand. lol.
@thestreet Considering I've been more than respectful to you and you can't seem to muster an ounce of respect in return I should be ignoring you. However, I'm not a bigot. Anyways, epidemiology is documentation of disease not the prevention and study of it. In epi you say these people got sick in this location lets find out what made them sick. It also addresses demographics and disparities in health. It does not find medication. I took several epidemiology courses I know what I'm talking about.
@thestreet And I said science in general yields suck-ish results. It took years to understand pathogens. During that era of not understanding the science of pathogens sucked. Money and time wasted on finding out about pathogens with little results. Fast forward 70+ years and we have a general grasp on pathogens. What I am trying to say is that no matter the models used in experimentation the results will be minute at best. Breakthroughs happen once in a while. CONT.
@raventakayama I was respectful. I even said I respect your position, because I knew immediately it is clearly medical. But you aren't acknowledging anything I say. Your perspective is emotionless and ultimately dogmatic. I am coming from an ethical perspective. I listen to ex-vivis and biologists. They are the source. I do not listen to people paid vast sums of money, insisting we need to harm others and call it research for unreliable results.
@raventakayama It is the dark ages of science, and I think you know that by how you tried to justify it. I don't want to be rude to you, but your type bothers me, because you hold on to old-fashioned beliefs and you don't give a shit how it affects others. You should be advocating progression, not tradition. This is going nowhere. I am saying, I do not believe in vivisection and advising others (including you) to research all sides. You're saying, "It's unreliable, that is science, who cares".
@thestreets Mistakes are made as a result of human research as well. That's science. Trial and error. No more no less. Until we find a better way that is the way. My beliefs aren't old fashion. My beliefs come from my experiences. I actually know how to create the polio vaccine. As in hands on step by step. I know the steps taken to grow human body parts from animal skin. I've actually witnessed the procedures used to make insulin. I'm inoculated animals myself with my own two hands. Its fact!
@raventakayama And when the only justification is "mistakes are made," there is something really wrong with the circumstance being justified. The better way is: stop wanking to harming others for bullshit, and research actual people. Look at what demographic develoups which illnesses most, find out the common link between them. When ill, allow them to voluntarily be researched. It isn't hard. But, you think that animal research helps people. No, it's for lipstick and legal torture tactics. Bye.
@thestreet We do research people. Every drug ever invented had clinical trials on people. There millions of case studies done on sick people and we use that to further research. Animal research isn't exclusive. We do experiment on humans especially in hypersensitivity research. The blood transfusion "cure" for Ebola back in the 90s was due strictly to human research and observation. But that doesn't rule out the need for animal research. Now cosmetic research I disagree with.
@thestreet Yes my perspective is emotionless. Because science is a hard thing. Its not for everyone. Do I feel for the animals I've seen in the videos? Yes to a point, especially if the procedures were unnecessarily invasive. However, when it comes to necessary research I don't have such feelings. As long as the labs use the proper BSL requirements and follow ethics laws I don't see anything wrong with it. We're not all like minded and I understand where your heart is, but I'll have to disagree.
@raventakayama Exactly. And this is where you people reveal what you're actually about: Yourselves. We evolved to both be intelligent and empathetic. We are social animals. To hinder the emotional part, especially when feeling empathy for other sentient beings, is precisely why vivisection is the way it is and our world, as a whole. There is no ethics with you people. So you should not be near other sentient beings. They should not be in your care. I'm sorry if this is harsh, this is how I feel.
@thestreets Again I'll simply have to disagree with your emotional assessments. This kind of work isn't made for everyone. Just like being a soldier or a cop. Everyone can't pull the trigger. I respect how you feel, but it bothers me when such emotion for animals aren't projected toward our fellow man. I say I'm caring about us. The people with Multiple Myeloma, diabetes, heart disease and so on. Every one has an advocate, that's just how the world is, we just have opposing opinions.
@raventakayama My emotions are projected toward all animals - including human beings. Animal research harms human beings, as well. You aren't listening to me, so stop engaging me since clearly you don't care what I've to say about this subject.
Those Western illnesses can be reversed by adopting plant-based diets. But there is no money in that, so go ahead and ignore medical professionals treating their patients by use of non-cruelty, big buck methods. And before you scoff at that, research.
@thestreet Actually there's plenty of money in plant based diets. But healthy eating doesn't cure cancer or stop the spread of certain viruses. You need vaccines, and molecular mechanisms to combat these forms of illness. How can humans get a cancer combating mechanism from another human when all humans are susceptible? They can't. Its like the comic books, you take parts of other creatures and incorporate them into humans. That's the next step in science and its already being done i.e. insulin
Healthy eating can prevent non-hered cancer - as the consumption of dairy contains casein and meat is all fucked up with diseases. And if one has cancer, plant-based diets can help stop its aggressiveness and allow the body to heal or function better.
@raventakayama re: insulin: many type-2 diabetes go off insulin within a few weeks of monitored, plant-based nutrition. You're looking for cures in all the wrong places, because you're assuming the causes are unachievable. Okay, so this is going nowhere. I believe animal research is bullshit. I believe Western culture is bullshit. I believe people need to stop being drones and research nonbias sources. 'Tis all.
@thestreet What about type 1 diabetes? Not all cases of type one are born diseases, but many are. A deficiency in insulin production can't be "cured" by a green diet. Plus humans are omnivores by nature. We may have the ability to elect to eat certain things, but we were meant to consume both plants and animals. And trust me there's TONS of research on healthy eating. What you're not understanding is that no one area of research has a monopoly on scientific findings.
@thestreet And if you have certain types of cancer especially cancers dealing with bone marrow, some plants like beets, which are blood building plants can cause further spread and proliferation of cancer cells. Don't you see that there's no one absolute answer. What you are speaking on isn't science. Science encompasses ALL possibilities! Every what if scenario! THAT IS SCIENCE! Experimentation, failure, repeat until results are found or new methods are discovered.
@raventakayama I don't believe we are omnivores. I believe we're opportunistic frugivores. Like how the herbivore hippo exhibits cannibalism during times of limited resources, we too did just that only we developed a culture around its convenience. I believe this, due to our teeth and jaw structure, our intestines, the enzymes in our saliva/stomach, and our inability to thrive with omni diets. The world was once thought to be flat. Out understanding changes.
@thestreetsempty Being an omnivore isn't a mental construct or a lifestyle choice lmao! Our biological system allows us to eat both meat and plants. We are biologically omnivorous. Matter of fact we have a harder time digesting leafy greens than meats. And you'd know in front any basic level bio class that our teeth are made for grinding, and tearing. We have k9s just like dogs, and flat molars just like cows. LOL simply put we are naturally omnivorous by design.
@thestreet Instead of throwing insults maybe you should start proving your point. We are omnivores by design. We match the physiological structures of other animals that exist as omnivores. A lion is clearly a carnivore. Its biological system can't digest plant material. The FACT that we can digest both literally makes us omnivores. That is not hard to understand. And we're no where as ill as we use to be. Considering life expectancy has steadily increased even though diets have declined.
@raventakayama I don't believe we're omnis. Even if we were, we can live without meat/dairy. People with illnesses aggravated or caused by such consumption, become stable or well by abstaining from consuming meat/dairy. All I was saying: you look for causes and effects in the wrong places, and everyone suffers from it. Despite your sour cream ego. You only believe all you believe, so you can sleep at night for being a monster and torturing animals. Go experiment on infants and retards.
@thestreet Even lower omnivorous animals can sustain themselves on plants alone, however the fact that they can properly consume both gives them and us the scientific classification of omnivore. Look, I didn't go to school for nearly eight years and put in work to get these degrees in order to torture animals because that's how I get my kicks. Its a scientific practice. Until viable standalone practices come about it will remain a practice of science. Its part of my field of study, period.
@Fleefles See, this is the problem with ignorance and assumption. You need to research animal research and how it stalls the progression of medical advances. Each species is different, and every test on an animal NEVER indicates the effects it will have on human subjects. The first human subjects to receive treatment are the actual "guinea pigs". Many people have been harmed because of animal research. But, you could always look it up.
Oh, and I do care about the human implications. Obviously.
@thestreetsempty Epidemiology is much more accurate, and imposes the least amount of suffering. There is also no risk of CAUSING mutations of illnesses which pose health threat to pandemic proportions. Oh, but no one even talks about that aspect, huh? Okay, go research. Or, don't, your choice.
@Fleefles You're retarded. I hope you don't have kids b/c I doubt you'll be able to instill compassion in them in which case, the world is probably better without them.
@raventakayama So what if people who have bone marrow disease cannot eat beets? Then, they shouldn't eat beets. There are other plant source nutrients. No one should eat meat/dairy. Some people have glucose probs, think it's the fruit, then they remove meat/dairy from their diet and all of the sudden, have no glucose problems. Weird. Not that rare cases matter, on a broader spectrum.
Type-2 can and is reversed by plant diets. Type-1, the ones born with it, it basically manages it without drugs.
The only reason I brought this up, is because I am criticising your fixation of methods. You look in the wrong places, find the wrong solutions, and everyone suffers. All this suffering could end, if you people stopped being capitalist weirdos. You don't listen to me, so stop engaging me.
@thestreet The only time there's a chance to find the wrong solution is when you're doing unfounded experimentation with no preset diameters. Even if these experiments were complete failures we still learned something from them. Now when cultivating denatured pathogens, which is basically a vaccine. You can use any biological system. So any animal would do in this situation. Those are the facts! You're spouting a lot of opinions. Saying what you believe, but I'm saying what I'VE SEEN AND DONE!
@thestreetsempty And with the bone marrow thing I was using that as an example to show that plants can be damaging as well. There are not clear cut answers. And no your diet alone doesn't manage type1 diabetes. Some people have such severe cases of diabetes that the slightest sugar intake is harmful. Even with the simplest sugar, glucose which is found in plants. If the body doesn't have sufficient insulin then it can't properly store glucose-6-phosphate as glycogen which = diabetic response.
@thestreet This means that even if we use humans and only humans for such research we'd get the same failed results more often than not. That's science. Its all trial and error that's why it sucks. We don't have the information needed to fully understand all aspects of life. That's why we use animal research, human research, which is used quite often I know you've heard of clinical trials, and other forms of research in collaboration with one another. Prove animal research isn't needed.
@raventakayama Animal research isn't needed, because 1. it is mostly used for cosmetics and military. 2. it produces results dependent upon that specific animal, in those specific environments. Having nothing to do with any species as a whole, let alone the human species. It is millions of dollars wasted, it is health hazardous if those illnesses get out (which they do), and it destroys human and nonhuman lives.
Prove it is necessary. You can't. It is unreliable and never "controlled".
@thestreets The fact that we can use a pig's pancreas to produce insulin is a medical marvel. We learned how to do it by experimentation on pigs. There's tons of nerve damage information received from research on cats. There's a new wave of vaccines being produced from animal cells. These vaccines don't correspond to the animals they correspond to the disease so there's no need for species compatibility in those cases. Yes mistakes are made as a result of animals research. However...
@raventakayama But the perceived "good" doesn't outweigh the bad. This is the problem. This is why it is bad science. You keep saying it is faulty, then whenever something sort of gives a glimmer of hope, you use that as leverage for your beliefs. You need to look at the whole picture. Does the cost of human and nonhuman lives outweigh the coincidental results garnered few and far between?
This is merely hope you hold dear; vindication for your beliefs. That is all.
@thestreet I know both sides. Trust me, anybody trying to work in research has to go through more ethics classes than actual procedural classes. I've had my fair share of both sides. I just don't think killing a million lab mice over 10 years in order to create MMR or rock mountain spotted fever vaccines is a great lost. Sounds like a medical victory. These things aren't coincidences. It takes years of research to get a breakthrough. That's just the limitations of science.
@raventakayama If it wasn't mice, it'd be another animal. Producing different results. That medical marvel would be chucked out the window. See how that works? You need human subjects. Those animals are sentient. Infants or retards okay to use? We created this mess, and other species aren't ours to dispose of. There needs to be a better, more ethical way. I don't want to keep repeating myself. You justify something that isn't working. You use coincidences as evidence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
@thestreet Actually no you can produce MMR in any animal with a liver or filtering organ. We didn't get the vaccine from them and it has no genetic link to them. MMR vaccine was first found by using a different animal. But its more economically sound to use lab mice because they reproduce so quickly. And let me ask you how can you have millions of coincidences? And how can you duplicate coincidences using other animals? While lots of it is hit and miss, its more than a coincidence.
@thestreet There's a difference between testing drugs on animals and using animal bodies to mass produce a product of sorts. The thing here is that these animals have faces and expressions. You go down to lessor organisms and there's no outcry for them. Plants have been found to learn and adapt to their surrounds. They're living and literally breathing. But they aren't cute and they don't have faces for humans to project emotions onto. Just saying that this is all perception.
To all you anti-animal testing people.. the majority of you eat meat right? farming is just the same principal.. farms kill more than 50 times animals for food unnecessarily (is, its too small, doesnt have lean enough meat, too much stock etc) than testing do. and how do you justify protesting against this, when you eat meat that comes from a place like this? youtube.com/watch?v=w78lmhNdKDo
Even though I'm a huge animal rights supporter I can't oppose medical research as long as the research is valuable and not reasonably attainable in other areas. Obviously cosmetic research doesn't fall in this category.
That said I would not oppose more extensive research on human subjects either, of course only with the patient's consent. Why human life is held to be sacrosanct while animal life is considered expendable I've never understood.
Some people say using animals on medical purpose might be abusing animals, but according to your video, it looks it is necessary cause that we have to take. Benefits are much bigger than the loss. I'm not saying it is justified by the fact it has more benefits than the loss, but what I think about animal using research is just what we have to do, if we want to keep humans healthy.
What's with all this medical jargon you are all writing?? The bottom line is that this 'research' is actually being used on creatures with personality, feelings and senses. It's completely unjustified, the sad thing is the poor beautiful creatures are being used to save a species not worth saving. A lot of these diseases are man made and can you actually justify testing drugs on animals that have very different effects on humans? Completely ridiculous. This is not science but evil torture
“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -- Bill Gates.
How about you try again, fool? Animal Experimentation will never be accepted by me. It is unethical, and those who support it should burn in hell!
The government and the health care system is a LIE. They are not trying to help us, they are trying to spread disease, illness, death! These poor animals have NO reason to suffer. STOP THIS NOW!
@sashaivette Bill Gates, said to have donated money to certain "sciences" as well as being involved in third world issues. And no, none of it led to any good but fund the pockets of the multinationals. "Junk food" and vaccinations to these poor people that had their lives destroyed by all this industrialization and "economy" or "economics". So he basically gave the go ahead to poison an innocent group of humans.
@ShroedingerWatcher The only tuberculosis medicine in more than 10 years to reach the final clinical trials is funded by the Bill Gates foundation. Dunno if you know, but the extended resistant strains of TB are a real present danger. You're welcome for this info you'll most likely ignore in favour of more hyperbolic thoughts.
@seleniaactimel Quick to label me as exaggerated when you believe in exaggerated info. However you can provide the info anyway as I like to hear opinions and see how far you believe in it.
And while you do that you may like to remember the rest of my comment because it is true and it is disgusting (its not all about "animals" you know). Drugs cannot replace people's food and overall lifestyle.
1. No perfect comparison for Diabetes - but similar enough that we now have a treatment thanks to animal research
2. That's misleading paraphrasing of page 6 of the handbook. However the beginning of the next chapter says: "Current knowledge in the disciplines of Pharmacology and Toxicology has been achieved largely by using experimental animals."
3. I think you misunderstand ideas of concordance - no reaction is identical - you can't use percentages in such a simplistic way
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).1987
"...there is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species difference. Dr Lin, In Vitro Toxicology, vol 1.1987
@LondonProphet re toxicology...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. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
@LondonProphet re diabetes, the creation of insulin as indicated by expert opionions below had nothing to do with animal experiments, it was the result of autopsy. you are relying again on the post hoc fallacy; aniaml exp occurred later insulin is created therefore we are supposed to believe that the animale xp. created it. over 100 million animal killed in diabetes 'research' over nearly 100 years and more diabetics than ever
@nomonkeymedforhumans you're kind of forgetting the very real reasons why there are more and more diabetic people, and conveniently ignoring all the statistics on disease management and treatment of diabetic complications.
@LondonProphet I presume you wll now block me as you do all who express the truth about animal experiments on your site so i can only advise people to see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org speakcampaigns. org drugtestingconference. com for some truth. Human medicine cannot be based on any other species.
I'd like to ask supporters of animal experimentation what animal is predictive for humans? ie predicts carcinogens, teratogens, toxicants etc with even 60% accuracy and what animal is an accurate model for even 60% of human diseases?
@humanmedforhumans I'd like to ask you how do we have the biological knowledge we have necessary for new treatments, and how we could have it without those animal models. you see, it's not a question of the perfect model. It's a question of the most efficient and adequate for the situation at hand. Do you know where drug screenings (first stage of trials) are made? many of them in c. elegans, which is the furthest away from a human as a model can be, but it does serve a very important purpose.
# "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.)
Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press).
@SylviesBoudoir I personally do not feel that the cost to animals is justified by the benefits accrued from further research into pure cosmetics. The issues of household items is more difficult - I would want to know that day-to-day items used near kids was not, say, carcinogenic or other toxic - however it is a very delicate line and I believe that people need to make sure that very, very few animals are used in toxicological tests for these items - it's an area my mind is not entirely made up.
@speakingofresearch Especially when the tests do not work as the animals (as always) are not predictive for humans...# "The results of these (animal) tests cannot be used to predict toxicity or to guide therapy in human exposure."
(Christopher D. Smith, M.D., Longbeach, California.)
# "The data produced by these tests don't keep harmful products from being sold."
@speakingofresearch What benefits?..."After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
@SylviesBoudoir Please note that the tests do not work anyway. They are a legal device. # "As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
# "The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
@SylviesBoudoir "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.) Please see curedisease. net for valid info.
thank you to all the research that allows my mother and other family members to live with type 1 diabetes. Thank you for developing the thyroxine that I take to live.
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.)
You will find that all claims made re. breakthroughs due to animal experiments rely on the same fallacious form of argument, we are to believe that AE caused a breakthrough just because they occurred, no causal connection shown.
@sheburnedmedown "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.)
Please note; if my replies cease it is because i have been blocked, this is how supporters of animal experiments deal with valid opposition.
@sheburnedmedown "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.)
HMMM I wonder if Humans would feel the same if another Species used us for experimentation, for there research.The Germans, and Japaness, did Human Experiments during War time, and made some the biggiest advancements in Medical research for there Time, if we want the knowledge it is us who should pay the price! we should not do it at the expense of Animals, we would not want someone or something else Experimenting on us for there gaines.
grndcontrol07 3 weeks ago
@grndcontrol07 You can see a fairly clear reply to the "what if aliens tried to test on us" on the SR website - Look for the "Gorgons Visit Earth"
Essentially our ability to be moral agents means that they would not be able to morally test on us.
LondonProphet 3 weeks ago
@grndcontrol07 yes the germans set up death camps where experiments were being conducted on humans! are you seriously advocating this? maybe you should be the first resident. people like you make me wanna puke
TakinDecent 1 week ago
orgon mariuana olie why not ?
martinkft 4 months ago
It's really pretty pathetic that you have to resort to name calling. You don't even know me so calling me an "idiot" just shows your maturity lever and what type of raising you received as a child. In addition, to say that a mouse doesn't have a complex nervous system and therefore doesn't have a state of awareness that allows it to feel pain sounds pretty uneducated to me.
mszypul 6 months ago
Actually I am an Aerospace Engineer from Arizona State University. What educational background do you have? Unfortunately, the "scientists" perform experiments on mammals with complex nervous systems, not on insects. I will not argue with you, there's no point.
mszypul 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Final Solution: Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids and forced to participate. While this is ocurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured.. They will be told from the start that as soon as their last remaining loved one is dead that they will go through the process themselves. This should be done to everyone and their family members who profit from this. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
theraviolicat2 6 months ago
@mszypul
1. The pie chart shows the fraction of experiments involving pain for animals - not which have the ability to feel pain i.e. making an incision without a pain killer would be in the red (7%).
2. I'm not sure what evidence is lacking? Are you denying the role of animal research is any of the benefits? Questioning the regulations?
3. MOST biologists don't do in vivo studies - they use computers, cell cultures, MRIs etc. There is still some research for which we have no alternative
LondonProphet 8 months ago
@LondonProphet 1. How would the "scientists" know which experiments result in pain? Does the "scientist" ask the rabbit if his eyes hurt or does he call on a rabbit speaking translator to ask the rabbit that question?
2. What evidence? The one that the "scientists" made up to sugarcoat things? There is more damage than good from animal research.
mszypul 7 months ago
@LondonProphet 3. It is the "scientists" moral duty to find an alternatives first. There is nothing ethical in inflicting pain on one species for the benefit of another species.
There is a two-part video on YouTube named "Animal Testing - Good Science? Or Pointless Cruelty?". Watch them fully.
mszypul 7 months ago
i forgot one more thing. Why would he bring statistics on our meat consumption when this speech is supposed to be convincing us that animal research is beneficial? Meat consumption and animal testing are two different issues not relating to each other. Was he trying to tell us that those opposing animal research should focus our efforts somewhere else? Like I said, those are different issues and both need to be addressed separetely.
mszypul 8 months ago
I actually tried watching this video with an open mind to really understand the opposite side of the argument but this speech is not convincing at all. In fact, with the repeated use of "happy" and no evidence for many of his claims make his speech a failure. I'm gonna see if anyone else has pro-testing arguments that are convincing.
mszypul 8 months ago
@mszypul Idiot, most medical research progress has come form animal testing
jurassicturd3 7 months ago 4
@jurassicturd3 Really? What is your source of information? This poor presentation? All I see on TV is commercials paid by attorneys saying "If you've taken this medication and had a heart attack, please call this number". The commercials exist because the medications were tested on animals and the animals reacted well to them. But once approved by the FDA, people had adverse effects. There are many who experimented on animals who now come out and admit that animal tests do more damage than good
mszypul 7 months ago
@mszypul Do you not realise that if a drug has beed FDA approved it also had to go through extensive human trials AFTER the animal testing?!? If the drug causes adverse effects then its shelved! The reason those adverts exist is not because of animal testing you twit but because every human reacts differently and the sue culture in america is out of control.
dan90555 6 months ago
@dan90555 You know I actually composed a reply but then I realized that anyone who resorts to pathetic name calling is not worth to have discussions with.
mszypul 6 months ago
@mszypul Would you have preferred 'you fool!" ? Same thing really.
Well you already couldnt resist the urge to reply back anyway.. so why not carry on and give me this reply that youve held back. Saying they have complex nervous systems is a bit ambiguous.. Considering the VAST majority of research is done on mice which do not have incredibly complex nervous systems unlike primates, most research is being done on an animal with limited capacity to 'feel'.
dan90555 6 months ago
@mszypul It's not like the "scientist" can ask the animal "Do you feel pain?" - the fact you say something like that tells me you have hardly any scientific education or knowledge and are that typical person arguing from the emotional stand point. If you did youd know that neuroscientists can more certainly determine if pain is being experienced. But again, that doesnt mean it 'feels' pain on the level we do! A flipping insect cant 'feel' like we do! It doesnt have the capacity...
dan90555 6 months ago
And the claim that "scientists" don't want to test on stressed animals and that they would switch to alternatives shall they be available and be "effective"...no they wouldn't! Scientists are being taught in school to use animals from the moment they perform their first dissection. Asking a "scientist" to use alternative methods is like asking them to go back to school. This guy's claim here has no evidence and it even sounds ridiculous and naive.
mszypul 8 months ago
That pie graph showing the fraction of animals that do or do not feel pain...how could something like that even be documented? It's not like the "scientist" can ask the animal "Do you feel pain?". The animal's body movements (or the lack of) and sounds clearly send a message that the animal is in pain, physically, emotionally or both.
mszypul 8 months ago
@tommydo1e Clearly you have never set foot in a lab
LondonProphet 8 months ago
Modern day medicine is bullshit, we should focus on the preventive method- a healthy life, also; natural medicine is much better than the typical one + its cheaper... A friend of mine was dying from brain tumors, the doctors told him he was going to die, he went to a natural hospital (he was treated with mud baths, and different natural medicines) and now is in a perfect state with no colateral damage...
FlaiteOne 8 months ago
@FlaiteOne Please show me the peer reviewed research that shows how mud baths can treat a brain tumor.
LondonProphet 8 months ago
@LondonProphet Why would i lie lol, google cases, you'll find many of them all over the web, praying has caused people to get rid of many terminal diseases to... its all in the mind.
FlaiteOne 8 months ago
What the speaker does not explain to us is why we have the right to test on animals and not on himself. The results would definately be more accurate. And since the arguments in favor of AT have to do with results, whats better than testing on humans! I'm sure he can be the first volunteer since he cares so much about cures... PROTEST are the perfects subjects for testing...
stakor1 8 months ago
Look at the video called Animal Testing - Good Science? Or Pointless Cruelty? Part 1 Do the animals look happy? No! They are going through much pain, slowly dying from toxins that are put into them. How does that seem right to you?
TaylorSwift1OV3 8 months ago
@Taylor Swift 1OF3 Animal Testing - Good Science? or Pointless Cruelty? and also The human cost of Animal Testing for all the speciesists out there!....Their is so much info and videos around to expose the true nature of animal testing and all their barbaric tests! ...These innocent animals are being, poisoned, burnt, starved and mutilated everyday!.....Horrific tortures they are subjected to ...all in the name of so called science!!
chayancephoebe 8 months ago
Haven't you ever seen the laboratorys and what they do to the animals, your trying to make it look better than it is, the animals are crowded and deppresed fighting for their lives.I would turn you into one of those poor animals if I could!
TaylorSwift1OV3 8 months ago
@TaylorSwift1OV3 I think this is the crucial difference. I HAVE seen animals in laboratories across the US and the UK, and I have never seen crowded or depressed animals. I see most animals housed in pairs or more, with plenty of space to move around, and a team of animal care technicians who do all they can to enrich the lives of animals while they remain in labs.
LondonProphet 8 months ago
I would of been the only one to slap the shit out of him.
lty2k84 8 months ago
No Need for ANIMALS testings to cure or treat health issues. There are other things such as NATURAL REMEDIES. The more drugs, the more health issues. How do humans not understand this. There are way too many dumbnuts walking without the consciousness. I hope this world blows up quick. Tired of dealing with these wanna be GODS. Secondly, the GOD Source would never allow for such works. IT works against its own creation. It is vibrating and working at the lowest of all levels. .... I SAY BAN IT.
lty2k84 8 months ago
its so human that people will kill millions of animals each year for silly things like cosmetics. more than half of the medicine tested on animals does not work on humans and many of it that is passed through inspection ends up killing more people instead. We have tested on animals for cancer for more than 40 years and are we any farther to finding a cure?? no, animal testing is just stupid.
taylorswiftismyhomie 8 months ago
Its easy to stand there with the moral high ground and reject animal testing, but when your ill and need life saving treatment derived from animal research you can be sure almost everyone wouldn't turn it down...
Once there are viable alternatives, it will be abandoned. There may be cases where a treatment has been stalled, but overall medical science wouldn't be where it is it, let alone have started! Would you rather no AR, or potentially life saving cures for you and those close to you...
dan90555 8 months ago 11
@dan90555 Clearly you've been desensitized and are lacking empathy and compassion. Great argument you have there, but what about the emotional treatment of the animals? If an animal cries out in pain or reacts un-cooperatively because it's scared, is it "viable" to sit there and beat the shit out of it? You're only skimming the surface of the treatment. Go learn a little more. Oh. And there are viable replacements. Animal testing is cheaper. In a money-hungry world I suppose it's ideal...
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa I have a huge amount of empathy and compassion.. more of the dying humans on this planet first though. Animals then come after depending on their similarities to humans, capacity for higher function.. I do not value a insects life more than a humans... like i do not value a mouse life more than say an ape. There are NOT alternatives that are proper replacements yet.. do not try to fool yourself into thinking there are. Maybe you should learn a little more.
dan90555 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa And to answer you - No I do not think beating an animal because it is uncooperative is acceptable treatment. That doesnt mean I dont think animal testing shouldnt be done, just that it should be tightly checked and monitored. Id also go as far as to say Id support something to give the 'great apes' more 'rights' so to speak and not test on them as I consider them to have a high enough moral value to think its not acceptable to use them. Mice though do not have a high value..
dan90555 6 months ago
@dan90555 I want ot highlight though that I do not then think the 'great apes' have the same moral value and status as humans, just that maybe their capacity to 'feel' is not too far from ours and so should be assigned a greater value that would eliminate them as possible lab animals.
And if there was replacements out there then theyd be used. Using animals isnt ideal and if a scientist could get better significant results using another method then they would.
dan90555 6 months ago
@dan90555 that makes no sense. for starters, the moral value is not relevant. they feel pain for reasons no longer viable in a world as advanced as ours. all animals feel pain regardless of moral standing. and second, why should an animal be put through that much pain in order to cure a disease that we cause ourselves? want to lower cancer rates? stop eating shitty food and smoking for starters. animals react differently to chemicals because they have entirely diff physiological makeups.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa Cancer will occur eventually regardless of whether you eat shitty food or smoke unless something else gets your first.. and its not just that that causes it... do you know much about cancer biology? And your right animals do react differently.. thats why scientists put a lot of effort into making animal models.. lab animals that are created specifically to model our diseases as similarly as possible. Advances in MS for instance came from such a model.
dan90555 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa And all animals do not 'feel' pain the same... they might be able to sense the pain, but how aware you are of the pain varies a lot and many just respond to the stimuli.. very different to say the response an ape gives to pain or a human.
Secondly why shouldnt an animal that is limited in capacity to 'feel' like we do not be used in order to help cure us?We eat animals to provide nutrition and have done so for millions of yrs.. something that was essential to our evolution
dan90555 6 months ago
@dan90555 Wow. I've done so much research on this subject and I happen to know that the animals' nervous systems are only similar to ours in that they are just as equipped to feel pain. AND, if an animal feels differently than we do, why would they be reliable research in the first place? I'm sorry, but an animal that only "responds to stimuli" is probably not going to display the same level of pain that would be experienced in humans which is why Britain is recalling a new drug every other day.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa I didnt say they arent equipped to feel pain.. I said they arent equiped to be as aware consciously as us. Apes are more well equipped for this and thats displayed in their brain structure and actions. Mice are not... We when treating diseases etc are looking at the physiology for which mice are sufficient a model.. we dont do complex brain chemistry experiments on mice because they dont have the capacity to be a good model for us.
dan90555 5 months ago
@dan90555 and furthermore, there are debates as to whether animals are just an evolutionary necessity for us. some say we aren't even built the way a real carnivore is in order to handle the capacity of digesting meat. but that aside, if you look into the cultures of people that kill purely to survive, there is always a regard for what the animal feels. a quick kill and it's over. that's a lot different than torturing an animal to cure a cancer we could probably naturally drown out ourselves.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa We arent carnivores... we dont only consume meat... we are omnivores and that is why we as a species exhibit traits for both meat eating and plant eating... as a result we cannot be the best at both.. herbivores have evolved to be brilliant plant eaters, carnivores to be brilliant meat eaters.. we being omnivores are good enough at both but not brilliant.. thats the trade off. And you cant drown out cancer.. its mainly a disease due to old age.. not like a disease like CF
dan90555 5 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa Sorry last one..
Fact is without animals our understanding of biology would be very limited. Hopefully, with recent advances with lab/organ on a chip tech we can do away with the practise. I look at it as a means to an end.. it is necessary so that one day it wont be. Advancing computers and growing biological knowledge will allow virtual modelling. And considering your stance, I hope out of principal you refuse treatments derived from animals otherwise thats hypocritical
dan90555 5 months ago
as long as it's okay to use them for medical research, their being used for commercial product testing will also always be allowed. I'm sorry but "fact is", people don't need to eat half the shit they do or use half the body enhancing products they do either. No one can rough it anymore because everyone likes having the things they want handed on a platter. As long as there is one, there is the other. I don't believe that's reason enough to use them for testing anymore whether it helps or not.
oliviamariesiragusa 5 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa Well I think we will have to just accept we disagree. I do think you can have one without the other, and think there should be. But like Ive said I really do hope you do also apply your belief when it does inevitably come to you needing something thats been developed by animal testing. Same applies to everyday products that arent 'needed' but contain animal parts.
If it helps though Id say within 30-40 years it wont be needed and when that time comes ill certainly support it
dan90555 5 months ago
@dan90555 nutrition and testing Raid, Pledge, cosmetics, and an endless list of other commercial products are two very different things. the vivisectors themselves will even tell you that it is an unreliable source of medical research. the only reason it's there is to serve as a scapegoat for future lawsuits. when the drug inevitably creates different, and potentially harmful, effects in a human, the companies have a back up plan in order to avoid being shut down.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@oliviamariesiragusa And sorry for the third post but can I say I do not really agree with animal testing for items I consider a luxury... cosmetics, Pledge etc as you mention are not life saving.. I define a BIG difference between animals used to develop medical cures and those for make-up etc... the UK has banned that kind of use anyway...
dan90555 5 months ago
You're English. No surprise there considering Britain has some of the most heinous testing facilities.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
I see you have heart bypass operations listed there. That's the only one I caught because I stopped watching your stupid argument. BUT, heart bypass operations could have been legitimized MUCH earlier on and saved more lives back when the idea was even suggested but it wasn't because it was continually performed on animals not conducive to the same anatomy of human beings. The studies kept failing and the procedure was withheld for decades. Animals are genetically different.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@dan90555 If you are ill then you should be the one getting tested! Not the animals!
crxtech1 4 months ago
Comment removed
dan90555 4 months ago
Comment removed
dan90555 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crxtech1 Yeah.. tested to find out the problem... but then when it comes to trying to cure the problem, Id rather nt be the lab rat for the first trials. Id likely die, or end up worse or something.
Do I take it then that when you are ill and are offered treatment, you will research how it was derived and refuse it then if any animals were at all used? If someone you loved was in that situation, would you tell its wrong to take the treatment because animals were used?
dan90555 4 months ago
@crxtech1 here is the thing next time you get sick don't go to a Hospital or a clinic or a Dr office because 99% of drugs out there was not possible without animal testing... further more people like you will always be against animal testing until you or your family needs a drug to save you lives
dunhillsupramk3 2 months ago
@crxtech1 What a pile of rubbish. How do you know if a medical treatment will be effective? It has to go through the animal process first. Humans and mice share 80% of genetic characteristics and it is thanks to medical studies on animals that we can save many human lives, on both testing and treating.
cecerchio 1 month ago
@cecerchio You do not know what you are talking about, 100% of treatments have to be re-tested on humans after animals because animal testing is not reliable.
crxtech1 1 month ago
@crxtech1 Absolutely it cannot be considered 100% reliable. But before a treatment can be considered safe for human test it has to go through the animal process. Even human twins, who share the same DNA, can respond differently to certain substances. This is due to history (previous diseases, lifestyle, eating habits, etc..) and especially the interaction between genotype and environmental factors (phenotype) that makes each of us unique individuals.
cecerchio 1 month ago
quite honestly this speech seemed very well though but hes missing the big picture animal testing is cruel theirs no well scientist take care of them is all good now in days our generation ignores the big picture the unfairness the cruelty that surrounds us no animal should be treated like they do in research labs although i love his speech he brings out good points but animal testing should not even exist
xxiRapeZombiezxx 9 months ago
The most basic reason that i won't consider my views (in which you are right) is the fact that there is NOT even the minimu ethical justification for this. I would greatly consider any argument you may provide though.
After and supposing the ethics are OK, then i would weight the possible gains against the level of suffering on an EQUAL BASIS. Unfortunately also here the result is negative for a.r. Even judgung it alone the flaws are too many for continuing this practice in our days
stakor1 9 months ago
Your reply clearly shows your close mindedness - you won't change your views regardless of what is said.
I would like to think that if someone showed me enough evidence that the earth was flat (clear proof of big alien experiment with crazy light illusions or whatever) then I'd like to think i'd consider the evidence.
LondonProphet 9 months ago
Billions of dollars wasted in animal research.
Either from a scientific or an ethical perspective a.r. is unjustifiable. No matter what you say in the video you cannot prove that the earth is flat because it is not. Instead of wasting your time in this, why don't you do some real scientific research with methods not based in a scientific practice full of flaws?
stakor1 9 months ago
@thestreetsempty, I think you misunderstand epidemiology. Yes it's used, yes it's important in helping to discover risk factors. But no, it doesn't tell you a thing about **how** a disease affects a living system (human or animal). Thus it cannot help create a treatment. Epidemiology might help us to see that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, but it does not explain, or help treat, suffererers who have never smoked a cigarette in their life.
LondonProphet 9 months ago
@thestreetsempty Prove it.
TheSpartanElite 9 months ago
Everyone: please research animal research. Not by the peddlers. By true, objective research into its supposed relevance and what they are actually "researching".
watch?v=3YkWstQgcmE
- If this comment is deleted, then the uploader has something to hide and isn't being intellectually honest. Something you'd hope those in the medical field would have respect for.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty Wow you tried to put the poster on the spot so you wouldn't get your comment removed lol. Go do your own research. I mean subjective research for and against. Don't just look up the things that pertain to how you feel about the situation. Get all sides, every explanation, any and all aspects. Then make your decision. Its called thinking critically not emotionally.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama I have researched. You try it. Go to the source: ex-vivisection scientists and other biologists. Nonhuman animal research is unreliable. Therefore, it is unnecessary and cruel. All the "medical marvels" due to animal research, were coincidences. Any other animal would give different results, thus we would feel differently about each treatment tested. Look it up. Also: YOU need to research, as anyone who does ends up feeling the same way. It's mainly for cosmetics and military.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty What I'm saying is have you researched both sides. And I never agreed with cosmetic research. That's strictly big business I'm usually anti-big business and I don't support it. The research I'm talking about is based upon medicine or understanding genetics. And the vast majority of scientific findings were accidental, or coincidences so to speak. That's science. The scientific method is made for trial and error until you get the desired result. That's perfectly normal.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama When lives are destroyed, human and nonhuman, it is inexcusable and should not be considered appropriate. Human beings are not the center of the universe, nor is our perception.
You're saying have I? That doesn't make sense. But yes, I have. You haven't.
If you're for animal research, you're for big-corp.
Do we need to gut open someone to understand genetics? After all we know already and could use models?
I understand your position and respect it. But I disagree.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty The genetic aspect doesn't involve "gutting". However physiological responses may need surgical procedures. I understand the the fact that all living things live and breathe and think at some level. The same could be said of microorganism, but we enjoy out sour cream and antibiotics because of research on them. Many diseases were successfully combated due to animal research and the creation of vaccines. Such as polio vaccine which was created from rhesus monkeys.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama lmao, look up the polio controversy. Dude, this is an old hat for me. Go research or something. I'm not interested in your justifications for bad science.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty The polio vaccine has worked for years and is extremely viable. People within the scientific community know this. Bad science is your opinion. The members of the human genome project wouldn't think it was bad science. Genetic experimentation on animals laid the ground work for the HGP. The HGP is now being used to predict breast cancer, MM, and many other genetic based diseases. So bad science? Sure if you believe breast cancer research is a hoax and so on.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama And you didn't look it up. If it were any other animal, it would have rendered different results, and we never would have used it. We lucked out. But it should have been performed on HUMAN SUBJECTS. See, this is the problem you people have getting through your skulls. Animal research is unreliable. This is why it is bad science. A human and rat and pig and monkey are different. Even chimps and humans are too different for accurate results. It is bad science. You are a drone.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Polio vaccine? Several animals were used in order to find that vaccine. Its not like we magically picked the right animal the 1st time. Most experiments or ideas for experiments are repeated time and time and time again. To say we missed something is usually false. Things may be postponed by the lack of results, but that chapter in experimentation will be revisited again and again by others. Experiments have to be able to be reproduced by others in order to be deemed an experiment.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty cont' AND human research is unreliable as well. Most research projects are simply stabs in the dark. Many findings are accidental. Humans are often used in hypersensitivity research and those results are often misread, unreliable or irrelevant to the population as a whole. It happens in ALL forms of research, there's no denying that. But does that mean we should just stop researching? No. A 1 in 1000 successful experiment is worth it in the area of medical research.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama Nothing you just said at all justifies animal research. You're making excuses for how it sucks, while admitting it sucks, while saying it's awesome. Go eat some babies or whatever.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty No, I'm telling you the nature of science because you clearly don't understand it. How can you judge science when you lack an understanding of it? That is the true question here. You say the results suck in animal testing. I say the results suck in ALL experimentations. If we found + results for everything right away, Nobel Prizes would be everywhere. Fact is science is messy, but that doesn't mean we should STOP. You haven't provided a legitimate reason to stop animal testing.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama You're justifying bad science, because you believe in like like a good little zealot. You aren't taking into account that it isn't reliable and with human subjects is much more reliable, almost 100%. Bad science like this costs lives - human and nonhuman. You think it's perfectly okay to torture and kill animals and people, for something that may be 40 - 70% accurate, depending on the coincidental results. You need to research all sides. And stop with the belief perseverance shit.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
This is the point: it is bad science. It harms all life. The medical field needs to progress. Big-corp sucks. You think you're being objective and intellectual. You are being very socially constructedish. Go research and stop being defensive about something that harms all of us. And if you want to be taken seriously, then actually be a good little fake sciency person, and read up on the issues.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty More reliable? 100%? See comments like that help me to understand you knowledge of experimentation. There's no 100% reliability in experimentation. In certain cases humans are as uncompilable as any animal. For example the monogamy gene. Some humans express this gene some don't. There's lower mammals who also express this gene. Experimentation on those mammals lead to the discovery of this gene in humans. Do you not know the complexity of science and experimentation?
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama Epidemiology is more reliable than vivisection. I said almost 100% especially in comparison to vivisection. You did not read, you do not research, you suffer from a '50s mentality and belief perseverance. You don't care about the cost of life, human and nonhuman. You're typical. Be more objective. Research this issue, then I'll give you the time of day. Oh, and read wtf I write next time.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Using a notation such as 100% even in the sense of it being ALMOST 100% still reveals that you have a lack of scientific understanding. Almost 50% would be a better estimate in this situation and even that's pushing it. Science is imperfect. There's no perfect form or way to do any of these things so scientist often do them all... Continue...
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet You're to short sighted. Think about it. How do we know which medications to use on sick and injured animals? Animal research. How do we cultivate vaccines for mass production? Using animals. We didn't use the animals to make the vaccines. We used humans to make them and animals to multiply them. There's far more to animal research than cutting them open so lets not narrow the spectrum here. Many rehabilitation techniques have come from studying cat vertebral injuries. Think please.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama For medicine to benefit HUMAN BEINGS, Epidemiology is more reliable than vivisection. Again, you're saying animal research sucks, and are saying that is okay. lmao.
There is a difference between "to" and "too".
Those were all coincidences, depending upon animal. As already stated. Yes, including you little wrist-happies' beloved polio retort. You need to research. Oh, wait. I was gonna ignore you, because you haven't done shit but fail to justify what you don't understand. lol.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Considering I've been more than respectful to you and you can't seem to muster an ounce of respect in return I should be ignoring you. However, I'm not a bigot. Anyways, epidemiology is documentation of disease not the prevention and study of it. In epi you say these people got sick in this location lets find out what made them sick. It also addresses demographics and disparities in health. It does not find medication. I took several epidemiology courses I know what I'm talking about.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet And I said science in general yields suck-ish results. It took years to understand pathogens. During that era of not understanding the science of pathogens sucked. Money and time wasted on finding out about pathogens with little results. Fast forward 70+ years and we have a general grasp on pathogens. What I am trying to say is that no matter the models used in experimentation the results will be minute at best. Breakthroughs happen once in a while. CONT.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama I was respectful. I even said I respect your position, because I knew immediately it is clearly medical. But you aren't acknowledging anything I say. Your perspective is emotionless and ultimately dogmatic. I am coming from an ethical perspective. I listen to ex-vivis and biologists. They are the source. I do not listen to people paid vast sums of money, insisting we need to harm others and call it research for unreliable results.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@raventakayama It is the dark ages of science, and I think you know that by how you tried to justify it. I don't want to be rude to you, but your type bothers me, because you hold on to old-fashioned beliefs and you don't give a shit how it affects others. You should be advocating progression, not tradition. This is going nowhere. I am saying, I do not believe in vivisection and advising others (including you) to research all sides. You're saying, "It's unreliable, that is science, who cares".
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreets Mistakes are made as a result of human research as well. That's science. Trial and error. No more no less. Until we find a better way that is the way. My beliefs aren't old fashion. My beliefs come from my experiences. I actually know how to create the polio vaccine. As in hands on step by step. I know the steps taken to grow human body parts from animal skin. I've actually witnessed the procedures used to make insulin. I'm inoculated animals myself with my own two hands. Its fact!
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama And when the only justification is "mistakes are made," there is something really wrong with the circumstance being justified. The better way is: stop wanking to harming others for bullshit, and research actual people. Look at what demographic develoups which illnesses most, find out the common link between them. When ill, allow them to voluntarily be researched. It isn't hard. But, you think that animal research helps people. No, it's for lipstick and legal torture tactics. Bye.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet We do research people. Every drug ever invented had clinical trials on people. There millions of case studies done on sick people and we use that to further research. Animal research isn't exclusive. We do experiment on humans especially in hypersensitivity research. The blood transfusion "cure" for Ebola back in the 90s was due strictly to human research and observation. But that doesn't rule out the need for animal research. Now cosmetic research I disagree with.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet Yes my perspective is emotionless. Because science is a hard thing. Its not for everyone. Do I feel for the animals I've seen in the videos? Yes to a point, especially if the procedures were unnecessarily invasive. However, when it comes to necessary research I don't have such feelings. As long as the labs use the proper BSL requirements and follow ethics laws I don't see anything wrong with it. We're not all like minded and I understand where your heart is, but I'll have to disagree.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama Exactly. And this is where you people reveal what you're actually about: Yourselves. We evolved to both be intelligent and empathetic. We are social animals. To hinder the emotional part, especially when feeling empathy for other sentient beings, is precisely why vivisection is the way it is and our world, as a whole. There is no ethics with you people. So you should not be near other sentient beings. They should not be in your care. I'm sorry if this is harsh, this is how I feel.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreets Again I'll simply have to disagree with your emotional assessments. This kind of work isn't made for everyone. Just like being a soldier or a cop. Everyone can't pull the trigger. I respect how you feel, but it bothers me when such emotion for animals aren't projected toward our fellow man. I say I'm caring about us. The people with Multiple Myeloma, diabetes, heart disease and so on. Every one has an advocate, that's just how the world is, we just have opposing opinions.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama My emotions are projected toward all animals - including human beings. Animal research harms human beings, as well. You aren't listening to me, so stop engaging me since clearly you don't care what I've to say about this subject.
Those Western illnesses can be reversed by adopting plant-based diets. But there is no money in that, so go ahead and ignore medical professionals treating their patients by use of non-cruelty, big buck methods. And before you scoff at that, research.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Actually there's plenty of money in plant based diets. But healthy eating doesn't cure cancer or stop the spread of certain viruses. You need vaccines, and molecular mechanisms to combat these forms of illness. How can humans get a cancer combating mechanism from another human when all humans are susceptible? They can't. Its like the comic books, you take parts of other creatures and incorporate them into humans. That's the next step in science and its already being done i.e. insulin
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama No money for you, though.
Healthy eating can prevent non-hered cancer - as the consumption of dairy contains casein and meat is all fucked up with diseases. And if one has cancer, plant-based diets can help stop its aggressiveness and allow the body to heal or function better.
Don't wipe your ass with my comic books.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@raventakayama re: insulin: many type-2 diabetes go off insulin within a few weeks of monitored, plant-based nutrition. You're looking for cures in all the wrong places, because you're assuming the causes are unachievable. Okay, so this is going nowhere. I believe animal research is bullshit. I believe Western culture is bullshit. I believe people need to stop being drones and research nonbias sources. 'Tis all.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet What about type 1 diabetes? Not all cases of type one are born diseases, but many are. A deficiency in insulin production can't be "cured" by a green diet. Plus humans are omnivores by nature. We may have the ability to elect to eat certain things, but we were meant to consume both plants and animals. And trust me there's TONS of research on healthy eating. What you're not understanding is that no one area of research has a monopoly on scientific findings.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet And if you have certain types of cancer especially cancers dealing with bone marrow, some plants like beets, which are blood building plants can cause further spread and proliferation of cancer cells. Don't you see that there's no one absolute answer. What you are speaking on isn't science. Science encompasses ALL possibilities! Every what if scenario! THAT IS SCIENCE! Experimentation, failure, repeat until results are found or new methods are discovered.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama I don't believe we are omnivores. I believe we're opportunistic frugivores. Like how the herbivore hippo exhibits cannibalism during times of limited resources, we too did just that only we developed a culture around its convenience. I believe this, due to our teeth and jaw structure, our intestines, the enzymes in our saliva/stomach, and our inability to thrive with omni diets. The world was once thought to be flat. Out understanding changes.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty Being an omnivore isn't a mental construct or a lifestyle choice lmao! Our biological system allows us to eat both meat and plants. We are biologically omnivorous. Matter of fact we have a harder time digesting leafy greens than meats. And you'd know in front any basic level bio class that our teeth are made for grinding, and tearing. We have k9s just like dogs, and flat molars just like cows. LOL simply put we are naturally omnivorous by design.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama Which is why we're all so ill. The Earth is flat.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@raventakayama Our teeth what? lmao. You're a Neanderthal.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Instead of throwing insults maybe you should start proving your point. We are omnivores by design. We match the physiological structures of other animals that exist as omnivores. A lion is clearly a carnivore. Its biological system can't digest plant material. The FACT that we can digest both literally makes us omnivores. That is not hard to understand. And we're no where as ill as we use to be. Considering life expectancy has steadily increased even though diets have declined.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama I don't believe we're omnis. Even if we were, we can live without meat/dairy. People with illnesses aggravated or caused by such consumption, become stable or well by abstaining from consuming meat/dairy. All I was saying: you look for causes and effects in the wrong places, and everyone suffers from it. Despite your sour cream ego. You only believe all you believe, so you can sleep at night for being a monster and torturing animals. Go experiment on infants and retards.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Even lower omnivorous animals can sustain themselves on plants alone, however the fact that they can properly consume both gives them and us the scientific classification of omnivore. Look, I didn't go to school for nearly eight years and put in work to get these degrees in order to torture animals because that's how I get my kicks. Its a scientific practice. Until viable standalone practices come about it will remain a practice of science. Its part of my field of study, period.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty IMO, someone who believes monkeys have more worth than children are more monstrous than animal researchers.
Fleefles 9 months ago
@Fleefles See, this is the problem with ignorance and assumption. You need to research animal research and how it stalls the progression of medical advances. Each species is different, and every test on an animal NEVER indicates the effects it will have on human subjects. The first human subjects to receive treatment are the actual "guinea pigs". Many people have been harmed because of animal research. But, you could always look it up.
Oh, and I do care about the human implications. Obviously.
thestreetsempty 9 months ago
@thestreetsempty Epidemiology is much more accurate, and imposes the least amount of suffering. There is also no risk of CAUSING mutations of illnesses which pose health threat to pandemic proportions. Oh, but no one even talks about that aspect, huh? Okay, go research. Or, don't, your choice.
thestreetsempty 9 months ago
@Fleefles You're retarded. I hope you don't have kids b/c I doubt you'll be able to instill compassion in them in which case, the world is probably better without them.
oliviamariesiragusa 6 months ago
@raventakayama So what if people who have bone marrow disease cannot eat beets? Then, they shouldn't eat beets. There are other plant source nutrients. No one should eat meat/dairy. Some people have glucose probs, think it's the fruit, then they remove meat/dairy from their diet and all of the sudden, have no glucose problems. Weird. Not that rare cases matter, on a broader spectrum.
Type-2 can and is reversed by plant diets. Type-1, the ones born with it, it basically manages it without drugs.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
The only reason I brought this up, is because I am criticising your fixation of methods. You look in the wrong places, find the wrong solutions, and everyone suffers. All this suffering could end, if you people stopped being capitalist weirdos. You don't listen to me, so stop engaging me.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet The only time there's a chance to find the wrong solution is when you're doing unfounded experimentation with no preset diameters. Even if these experiments were complete failures we still learned something from them. Now when cultivating denatured pathogens, which is basically a vaccine. You can use any biological system. So any animal would do in this situation. Those are the facts! You're spouting a lot of opinions. Saying what you believe, but I'm saying what I'VE SEEN AND DONE!
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreetsempty And with the bone marrow thing I was using that as an example to show that plants can be damaging as well. There are not clear cut answers. And no your diet alone doesn't manage type1 diabetes. Some people have such severe cases of diabetes that the slightest sugar intake is harmful. Even with the simplest sugar, glucose which is found in plants. If the body doesn't have sufficient insulin then it can't properly store glucose-6-phosphate as glycogen which = diabetic response.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet This means that even if we use humans and only humans for such research we'd get the same failed results more often than not. That's science. Its all trial and error that's why it sucks. We don't have the information needed to fully understand all aspects of life. That's why we use animal research, human research, which is used quite often I know you've heard of clinical trials, and other forms of research in collaboration with one another. Prove animal research isn't needed.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama Animal research isn't needed, because 1. it is mostly used for cosmetics and military. 2. it produces results dependent upon that specific animal, in those specific environments. Having nothing to do with any species as a whole, let alone the human species. It is millions of dollars wasted, it is health hazardous if those illnesses get out (which they do), and it destroys human and nonhuman lives.
Prove it is necessary. You can't. It is unreliable and never "controlled".
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreets The fact that we can use a pig's pancreas to produce insulin is a medical marvel. We learned how to do it by experimentation on pigs. There's tons of nerve damage information received from research on cats. There's a new wave of vaccines being produced from animal cells. These vaccines don't correspond to the animals they correspond to the disease so there's no need for species compatibility in those cases. Yes mistakes are made as a result of animals research. However...
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama But the perceived "good" doesn't outweigh the bad. This is the problem. This is why it is bad science. You keep saying it is faulty, then whenever something sort of gives a glimmer of hope, you use that as leverage for your beliefs. You need to look at the whole picture. Does the cost of human and nonhuman lives outweigh the coincidental results garnered few and far between?
This is merely hope you hold dear; vindication for your beliefs. That is all.
Research all sides. Please.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet I know both sides. Trust me, anybody trying to work in research has to go through more ethics classes than actual procedural classes. I've had my fair share of both sides. I just don't think killing a million lab mice over 10 years in order to create MMR or rock mountain spotted fever vaccines is a great lost. Sounds like a medical victory. These things aren't coincidences. It takes years of research to get a breakthrough. That's just the limitations of science.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@raventakayama If it wasn't mice, it'd be another animal. Producing different results. That medical marvel would be chucked out the window. See how that works? You need human subjects. Those animals are sentient. Infants or retards okay to use? We created this mess, and other species aren't ours to dispose of. There needs to be a better, more ethical way. I don't want to keep repeating myself. You justify something that isn't working. You use coincidences as evidence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
thestreetsempty 10 months ago
@thestreet Actually no you can produce MMR in any animal with a liver or filtering organ. We didn't get the vaccine from them and it has no genetic link to them. MMR vaccine was first found by using a different animal. But its more economically sound to use lab mice because they reproduce so quickly. And let me ask you how can you have millions of coincidences? And how can you duplicate coincidences using other animals? While lots of it is hit and miss, its more than a coincidence.
raventakayama 10 months ago
@thestreet There's a difference between testing drugs on animals and using animal bodies to mass produce a product of sorts. The thing here is that these animals have faces and expressions. You go down to lessor organisms and there's no outcry for them. Plants have been found to learn and adapt to their surrounds. They're living and literally breathing. But they aren't cute and they don't have faces for humans to project emotions onto. Just saying that this is all perception.
raventakayama 10 months ago
To all you anti-animal testing people.. the majority of you eat meat right? farming is just the same principal.. farms kill more than 50 times animals for food unnecessarily (is, its too small, doesnt have lean enough meat, too much stock etc) than testing do. and how do you justify protesting against this, when you eat meat that comes from a place like this? youtube.com/watch?v=w78lmhNdKDo
LilMissKitty88 11 months ago
Even though I'm a huge animal rights supporter I can't oppose medical research as long as the research is valuable and not reasonably attainable in other areas. Obviously cosmetic research doesn't fall in this category.
That said I would not oppose more extensive research on human subjects either, of course only with the patient's consent. Why human life is held to be sacrosanct while animal life is considered expendable I've never understood.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
Comment removed
wjeong1 1 year ago
Some people say using animals on medical purpose might be abusing animals, but according to your video, it looks it is necessary cause that we have to take. Benefits are much bigger than the loss. I'm not saying it is justified by the fact it has more benefits than the loss, but what I think about animal using research is just what we have to do, if we want to keep humans healthy.
wjeong1 1 year ago
What's with all this medical jargon you are all writing?? The bottom line is that this 'research' is actually being used on creatures with personality, feelings and senses. It's completely unjustified, the sad thing is the poor beautiful creatures are being used to save a species not worth saving. A lot of these diseases are man made and can you actually justify testing drugs on animals that have very different effects on humans? Completely ridiculous. This is not science but evil torture
amby1984 1 year ago
@amby1984 what do you mean alot of these dieseses are man made?
werewolfsfury 1 year ago
@amby1984 I hope you don't take any kind of medications or develop any serious medical conditions
ladycav09 11 months ago
finally someone with a brain
katosteen 1 year ago
@katosteen Focused in e-con-omics.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -- Bill Gates.
How about you try again, fool? Animal Experimentation will never be accepted by me. It is unethical, and those who support it should burn in hell!
sashaivette 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The government and the health care system is a LIE. They are not trying to help us, they are trying to spread disease, illness, death! These poor animals have NO reason to suffer. STOP THIS NOW!
sashaivette 1 year ago
@sashaivette Bill Gates, said to have donated money to certain "sciences" as well as being involved in third world issues. And no, none of it led to any good but fund the pockets of the multinationals. "Junk food" and vaccinations to these poor people that had their lives destroyed by all this industrialization and "economy" or "economics". So he basically gave the go ahead to poison an innocent group of humans.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
@ShroedingerWatcher The only tuberculosis medicine in more than 10 years to reach the final clinical trials is funded by the Bill Gates foundation. Dunno if you know, but the extended resistant strains of TB are a real present danger. You're welcome for this info you'll most likely ignore in favour of more hyperbolic thoughts.
seleniaactimel 1 year ago
@seleniaactimel Quick to label me as exaggerated when you believe in exaggerated info. However you can provide the info anyway as I like to hear opinions and see how far you believe in it.
And while you do that you may like to remember the rest of my comment because it is true and it is disgusting (its not all about "animals" you know). Drugs cannot replace people's food and overall lifestyle.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
@seleniaactimel I forgot to say you can send whatever info if it is too long via a Personal Message, YouTube comment boxes are too restrictive.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
haha! he's my economics teacher!
Sasha2010Fierce 1 year ago
@Sasha2010Fierce And thats all he is.
ShroedingerWatcher 1 year ago
i spent hours looking for a video like this, most of the videos had old black and white photos or 60's videos
brandonent50 1 year ago
1. No perfect comparison for Diabetes - but similar enough that we now have a treatment thanks to animal research
2. That's misleading paraphrasing of page 6 of the handbook. However the beginning of the next chapter says: "Current knowledge in the disciplines of Pharmacology and Toxicology has been achieved largely by using experimental animals."
3. I think you misunderstand ideas of concordance - no reaction is identical - you can't use percentages in such a simplistic way
LondonProphet 1 year ago 2
@LondonProphet
re; "concordance"...
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).1987
"...there is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species difference. Dr Lin, In Vitro Toxicology, vol 1.1987
nomonkeymedforhumans 1 year ago
@LondonProphet re toxicology...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. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
nomonkeymedforhumans 1 year ago
@LondonProphet re diabetes, the creation of insulin as indicated by expert opionions below had nothing to do with animal experiments, it was the result of autopsy. you are relying again on the post hoc fallacy; aniaml exp occurred later insulin is created therefore we are supposed to believe that the animale xp. created it. over 100 million animal killed in diabetes 'research' over nearly 100 years and more diabetics than ever
nomonkeymedforhumans 1 year ago
@nomonkeymedforhumans you're kind of forgetting the very real reasons why there are more and more diabetic people, and conveniently ignoring all the statistics on disease management and treatment of diabetic complications.
seleniaactimel 1 year ago
@LondonProphet I presume you wll now block me as you do all who express the truth about animal experiments on your site so i can only advise people to see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org speakcampaigns. org drugtestingconference. com for some truth. Human medicine cannot be based on any other species.
nomonkeymedforhumans 1 year ago
I'd like to ask supporters of animal experimentation what animal is predictive for humans? ie predicts carcinogens, teratogens, toxicants etc with even 60% accuracy and what animal is an accurate model for even 60% of human diseases?
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans I'd like to ask you how do we have the biological knowledge we have necessary for new treatments, and how we could have it without those animal models. you see, it's not a question of the perfect model. It's a question of the most efficient and adequate for the situation at hand. Do you know where drug screenings (first stage of trials) are made? many of them in c. elegans, which is the furthest away from a human as a model can be, but it does serve a very important purpose.
seleniaactimel 1 year ago
# "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.)
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press).
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
Comment removed
bcpsleeperkid4 1 year ago
I would like to ask a question to Tom Holder. Does he agree with animal testing with cosmetics and washing powders etc?
SylviesBoudoir 1 year ago
@SylviesBoudoir I personally do not feel that the cost to animals is justified by the benefits accrued from further research into pure cosmetics. The issues of household items is more difficult - I would want to know that day-to-day items used near kids was not, say, carcinogenic or other toxic - however it is a very delicate line and I believe that people need to make sure that very, very few animals are used in toxicological tests for these items - it's an area my mind is not entirely made up.
speakingofresearch 1 year ago
@speakingofresearch Especially when the tests do not work as the animals (as always) are not predictive for humans...# "The results of these (animal) tests cannot be used to predict toxicity or to guide therapy in human exposure."
(Christopher D. Smith, M.D., Longbeach, California.)
# "The data produced by these tests don't keep harmful products from being sold."
(Ellen Michael, M.D., Beverley Shores, Indiana.)
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@speakingofresearch What benefits?..."After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@SylviesBoudoir Please note that the tests do not work anyway. They are a legal device. # "As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
# "The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
(Sandra Davies, M.D., Columbia, Maryland.)
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@SylviesBoudoir "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.) Please see curedisease. net for valid info.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
thank you to all the research that allows my mother and other family members to live with type 1 diabetes. Thank you for developing the thyroxine that I take to live.
sheburnedmedown 1 year ago 7
@sheburnedmedown Good call! No longer is hyperthyroidism a problem!
speakingofresearch 1 year ago 2
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.)
You will find that all claims made re. breakthroughs due to animal experiments rely on the same fallacious form of argument, we are to believe that AE caused a breakthrough just because they occurred, no causal connection shown.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@sheburnedmedown "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.)
Please note; if my replies cease it is because i have been blocked, this is how supporters of animal experiments deal with valid opposition.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@sheburnedmedown "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.)
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago