@openheartzoo So, let me ask. . .(all) ye anti-science nay sayers- Are you willing to give up electricity and driving automobiles? Because (reported) oil spills from Valdez, Persian Gulf, Galapatos Island, to name a few, have snuffed out more animal lives annually (from krill to Blue Whale....) than medical animal testing!!! That said- I like his idea of the "open lab" to remind those drug companies to practice those " 3 R's."
And just so were clear, mice and rats have been cured of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.And although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2010, nearly 200 preventive and therapeutic vaccine trials has failed to demonstrate benefit to humans.92 percent of drugs (those that have been tested on animals and in vitro) do not make it through Phase 1 of human clinical trials. You cant keep trying to make a flawed system work...
2 months later and I still have to answer responces to my messages after making myself perfectly clear on the fact that I will not change my ideals. Do your research before you start writting me out Olifs. Its actually 10's of millions of vertebrates (primates) and hundreds of millions of invertebrates (rats,mice) per year world wide... not ten. And for cecerchio "we manipulated nature" "we decide their destiny" coudnt have put it better myself. We are whats wrong in this world.
You ARAs should be consistent with your ideals so: if you or your dad gets heart attack don't call an ambulance, if you lose a limb don't replace it with an artificial one, if you get cancer or leukemia don't bother with treatments, if your dog is sick let it die. We humans manipulated nature so that some animals are more advantaged than others (dog>lions) in surviving,without us cows, cats and chicken would be extinct.As we decide their destiny, allow us to do research for us and their benefit
... benefits for the human race ... The word benefit and the word suffering , cannot co-existe in the same sentence . I do believe animal experimentation has donne alote for humans .. but wath did humans ever do good for this planet , other then to fix the previous mistakes done by us humans . Basically , if we need to kill inocent living beings , so that we can make are own lives easier and longer , we should'nt be fit to live.
Keven Mainville , Supporter of the anti-vivisection movement
@lyvium If this Kevin Mainville feels this is the case, then he should not take any treatments founded by animal research when he gets sick. I bet he would in a heart beat.
@TheKitch2 There are other ways of treating this matter , there are technologies today that have been proven more effective and accualy cheaper then animal research .... The question is , why do they still use underminded , expencice and inhuman treatments .. simple ... you still pay them to do so . Dont be so quick to judge people like me , cause you clearly dont know me. FACT : you cant even wright my name correctly and its right in you face .
@lyvium Can you name them? What other ways? If there were other more effective, cheaper ways on doing research, then we would use them, that makes sense, as we would be able to do better research for cheaper. I don't know of any scientist that wouldn't jump at that opportunity. But let me ask you this, would you use any treatment that used animal research that saved either you or you childs life? Don't be so quick to choose someone who views other people as worh saving over another species.
@TheKitch2 Off the top of my head I would say : embryonic stem cell tests , the 3T3 Neutral red uptake phototoxicity tests , human skin model tests , leftovers from surgical procedures or donated cadavers and Microdosing . And to answer your other question , what has been done .. has be done .We cant change the past , and since pretty much everything in are households and phamacys have been tested on animals we dont have much choice . My point is that today we we can end this once and for all .
@lyvium To keep my comment short, invitro testing was developed to reduce, not replace animal research. A drug might work well on a cell line, but how it will it work on a system? Invitro testing can't predict this. Microdosing can't predict side effects or toxicity at therapeutic levels. It's unrealistic to expect this to replace animal research. I hope for a day when animal research isn't necessary, but we have to live in the present, and try to reduce and refine animal research.
@lyvium If you take for example X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy, a metabolic disease that causes degenerative neural failure, we don't have anything besides animal models to search for a treatment/cure. Yes they use skin cells to screen for potential treatments, but they need the data from animal models to see if it actually can work before they test on humans.
If they can't do that anymore, are you the one to tell the parents of a dying child that a mouse is more valuable than their child?
@CollinMaessen I'm getting a little tired of this ( value of a childs life ) reasoning . Listen guys I'm all for life .. I just dont think one is better or more deserving then the other . Of course anyone who is placed in that position will probably have the same response (do what you have to do) . But then again , If you are to lose someone you love , you wont mind loosing 5 you dont even know ( human or animal ) . Emotional reasoning isnt a reason to justify death .. only misguided thoughts .
@lyvium I wasn't kidding about the child, it's a real life situation where what you are advocating has consequences for. Look up X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy, and then take a look at the Childhood phenotype. I've seen this up close and personal, the suffering these children go through is nothing compared to the life mice have in a laboratory. Which is often better than a lot pets, let alone wild mice.
If you want know how that disease looks like, rent the movie Lorenzo's Oil. It's dead on.
@lyvium It isn't about emotional reasoning. It's about people's lives. Unfortunately, yes, that does mean that some animals will be killed in the process. But would you rather a thousand animal lives, or thousands of human lives, making sure something for human use was safe before releasing wide? That's what it comes down to. The animals for testing are bred for that purpose. Humans aren't.
@lyvium How do you end something that can test multiple systems all at once? How one system's effects with a chemical or drug affects another system? There are many factors in testing, not just focusing on the symptom, that require, for most of them, an animal testing before human trials.
I sometimes don't get people saying end animal testing, but have no problem with repercussions with humans in trials.
@csbair I think I've said everything I wanted to say on this matter , you guys are clearly stuck to your conclusions... and so am I . I do not think one life deservers more then another and I do not think other species should pay for humans ... I just dont . You cant understand how I can think that way ... and I cant understand how you cant . Its just the way it is .
Keven Mainville , still a supporter of the anti-vivisection movement.
@TheKitch2 I dont see why you think your so important that millions of others should die in your place , but I guess thats just who you are ( selfish ) . See , I could easily judge you as well ... But I wouldnt do such a thing .
@lyvium I didn't judge you, I actually suspect you are a kind person, who cares about animals (as do I), I just wanted you to see that animal research is a necessary evil. But its mild discomfort for a little bit (like the vet) , in the majority of cases, there are occasions where its worse. However, its not like we do whatever we want, we have to get approval from a ethics committee. BTW, I assumed you made a typo, I thought your name was Kevin. Simple mistake, however it's write not wright.
@lyvium "Basically, if we need to kill inocent living beings , so that we can make are own lives easier and longer , we should'nt be fit to live." So, you refuse to take any antibiotics? You don't wash out wounds and cuts? If you take antibiotics or wash out wounds and cuts, you'll killing "innocent living beings" to make your "own life easier and longer." Even microscopic organisms are living beings.
@lyvium That's why it's called an ethical choice: If we want to cure children with cancer and many more diseases we need to find a cure, and to find a cure that works needs research and experimentation. The ethics is: we sacrifice maybe ten rats to save millions of ill people. If you stand in the way of research, I'm sorry but you're a bad person. This video explains everything you need to know.
0:54 seconds in... I'm sorry but he did evaded the question. What he said does not address the question, which was, "If we're so similar, why is it that many drugs that are successful in animal trials, go on to fail in human trials." It also looks like his actual response was edited. You can see a skip at the beginning of his response.
Comment removed
kimdenner 6 days ago
Comment removed
kimdenner 6 days ago
´without animal testing there would be no insulin or cure for will never be found. yeah back to dark ages let's burn some witches.
Osmodaful 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@openheartzoo So, let me ask. . .(all) ye anti-science nay sayers- Are you willing to give up electricity and driving automobiles? Because (reported) oil spills from Valdez, Persian Gulf, Galapatos Island, to name a few, have snuffed out more animal lives annually (from krill to Blue Whale....) than medical animal testing!!! That said- I like his idea of the "open lab" to remind those drug companies to practice those " 3 R's."
eliz49 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eliz49 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eliz49 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
eliz49 3 weeks ago
holy 100% staged interview, batman.
giving a dog a wee scratch, yeah, that's what happens. just like going to the vet. *rolls eyes*
openheartzoo 1 month ago
shut the hell up animal testing is bad huh let see you being tested huh whos with me
haziel98 1 month ago
And just so were clear, mice and rats have been cured of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.And although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2010, nearly 200 preventive and therapeutic vaccine trials has failed to demonstrate benefit to humans.92 percent of drugs (those that have been tested on animals and in vitro) do not make it through Phase 1 of human clinical trials. You cant keep trying to make a flawed system work...
lyvium 1 month ago
2 months later and I still have to answer responces to my messages after making myself perfectly clear on the fact that I will not change my ideals. Do your research before you start writting me out Olifs. Its actually 10's of millions of vertebrates (primates) and hundreds of millions of invertebrates (rats,mice) per year world wide... not ten. And for cecerchio "we manipulated nature" "we decide their destiny" coudnt have put it better myself. We are whats wrong in this world.
lyvium 1 month ago
You ARAs should be consistent with your ideals so: if you or your dad gets heart attack don't call an ambulance, if you lose a limb don't replace it with an artificial one, if you get cancer or leukemia don't bother with treatments, if your dog is sick let it die. We humans manipulated nature so that some animals are more advantaged than others (dog>lions) in surviving,without us cows, cats and chicken would be extinct.As we decide their destiny, allow us to do research for us and their benefit
cecerchio 1 month ago
... benefits for the human race ... The word benefit and the word suffering , cannot co-existe in the same sentence . I do believe animal experimentation has donne alote for humans .. but wath did humans ever do good for this planet , other then to fix the previous mistakes done by us humans . Basically , if we need to kill inocent living beings , so that we can make are own lives easier and longer , we should'nt be fit to live.
Keven Mainville , Supporter of the anti-vivisection movement
lyvium 9 months ago
@lyvium If this Kevin Mainville feels this is the case, then he should not take any treatments founded by animal research when he gets sick. I bet he would in a heart beat.
TheKitch2 4 months ago
@TheKitch2 There are other ways of treating this matter , there are technologies today that have been proven more effective and accualy cheaper then animal research .... The question is , why do they still use underminded , expencice and inhuman treatments .. simple ... you still pay them to do so . Dont be so quick to judge people like me , cause you clearly dont know me. FACT : you cant even wright my name correctly and its right in you face .
lyvium 4 months ago
@lyvium Can you name them? What other ways? If there were other more effective, cheaper ways on doing research, then we would use them, that makes sense, as we would be able to do better research for cheaper. I don't know of any scientist that wouldn't jump at that opportunity. But let me ask you this, would you use any treatment that used animal research that saved either you or you childs life? Don't be so quick to choose someone who views other people as worh saving over another species.
TheKitch2 4 months ago
@TheKitch2 Off the top of my head I would say : embryonic stem cell tests , the 3T3 Neutral red uptake phototoxicity tests , human skin model tests , leftovers from surgical procedures or donated cadavers and Microdosing . And to answer your other question , what has been done .. has be done .We cant change the past , and since pretty much everything in are households and phamacys have been tested on animals we dont have much choice . My point is that today we we can end this once and for all .
lyvium 4 months ago
@lyvium To keep my comment short, invitro testing was developed to reduce, not replace animal research. A drug might work well on a cell line, but how it will it work on a system? Invitro testing can't predict this. Microdosing can't predict side effects or toxicity at therapeutic levels. It's unrealistic to expect this to replace animal research. I hope for a day when animal research isn't necessary, but we have to live in the present, and try to reduce and refine animal research.
TheKitch2 4 months ago
@lyvium If you take for example X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy, a metabolic disease that causes degenerative neural failure, we don't have anything besides animal models to search for a treatment/cure. Yes they use skin cells to screen for potential treatments, but they need the data from animal models to see if it actually can work before they test on humans.
If they can't do that anymore, are you the one to tell the parents of a dying child that a mouse is more valuable than their child?
CollinMaessen 4 months ago
@CollinMaessen I'm getting a little tired of this ( value of a childs life ) reasoning . Listen guys I'm all for life .. I just dont think one is better or more deserving then the other . Of course anyone who is placed in that position will probably have the same response (do what you have to do) . But then again , If you are to lose someone you love , you wont mind loosing 5 you dont even know ( human or animal ) . Emotional reasoning isnt a reason to justify death .. only misguided thoughts .
lyvium 4 months ago
@lyvium I wasn't kidding about the child, it's a real life situation where what you are advocating has consequences for. Look up X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy, and then take a look at the Childhood phenotype. I've seen this up close and personal, the suffering these children go through is nothing compared to the life mice have in a laboratory. Which is often better than a lot pets, let alone wild mice.
If you want know how that disease looks like, rent the movie Lorenzo's Oil. It's dead on.
CollinMaessen 4 months ago
@lyvium It isn't about emotional reasoning. It's about people's lives. Unfortunately, yes, that does mean that some animals will be killed in the process. But would you rather a thousand animal lives, or thousands of human lives, making sure something for human use was safe before releasing wide? That's what it comes down to. The animals for testing are bred for that purpose. Humans aren't.
csbair 4 months ago
@lyvium How do you end something that can test multiple systems all at once? How one system's effects with a chemical or drug affects another system? There are many factors in testing, not just focusing on the symptom, that require, for most of them, an animal testing before human trials.
I sometimes don't get people saying end animal testing, but have no problem with repercussions with humans in trials.
csbair 4 months ago
@csbair I think I've said everything I wanted to say on this matter , you guys are clearly stuck to your conclusions... and so am I . I do not think one life deservers more then another and I do not think other species should pay for humans ... I just dont . You cant understand how I can think that way ... and I cant understand how you cant . Its just the way it is .
Keven Mainville , still a supporter of the anti-vivisection movement.
lyvium 4 months ago
@TheKitch2 I dont see why you think your so important that millions of others should die in your place , but I guess thats just who you are ( selfish ) . See , I could easily judge you as well ... But I wouldnt do such a thing .
lyvium 4 months ago
@lyvium I didn't judge you, I actually suspect you are a kind person, who cares about animals (as do I), I just wanted you to see that animal research is a necessary evil. But its mild discomfort for a little bit (like the vet) , in the majority of cases, there are occasions where its worse. However, its not like we do whatever we want, we have to get approval from a ethics committee. BTW, I assumed you made a typo, I thought your name was Kevin. Simple mistake, however it's write not wright.
TheKitch2 4 months ago
@lyvium Last comment, promise, I hate the 500 limit! Animal research also helps animals as well as humans.
TheKitch2 4 months ago
@lyvium "Basically, if we need to kill inocent living beings , so that we can make are own lives easier and longer , we should'nt be fit to live." So, you refuse to take any antibiotics? You don't wash out wounds and cuts? If you take antibiotics or wash out wounds and cuts, you'll killing "innocent living beings" to make your "own life easier and longer." Even microscopic organisms are living beings.
csbair 4 months ago
@lyvium That's why it's called an ethical choice: If we want to cure children with cancer and many more diseases we need to find a cure, and to find a cure that works needs research and experimentation. The ethics is: we sacrifice maybe ten rats to save millions of ill people. If you stand in the way of research, I'm sorry but you're a bad person. This video explains everything you need to know.
Olifs 1 month ago
Very good and concise explanations to these important questions.
nuromanb 1 year ago
0:54 seconds in... I'm sorry but he did evaded the question. What he said does not address the question, which was, "If we're so similar, why is it that many drugs that are successful in animal trials, go on to fail in human trials." It also looks like his actual response was edited. You can see a skip at the beginning of his response.
cypherzeros 1 year ago