Pour lutter efficacement contre l'expérimentation animale, il est vital de visionner la vidéo intégrale sur le sujet appelée "crimes cachés-hidden crimes" qui apporte des arguments scientifiques et donne les preuves que la vivisection est inutile et est une vaste fraude médicale, alibi pour récolter des sommes astronomiques qui vont aux firmes pharmaceutiques, avec la complicité des Etats et des Médias!
Also when I say that it means I'm gonna slit your neck with my cow bone knife. Scared vegan. Also I like to hunt deer with my uncle so I have no problem shooting or stabbing you, vegan.
If the Vegan and the Omnivores were to ever got war we would kick your asses by 2 obvious reasons. First of all people who eat meat have mor muscle and we're not pale like you guys. Second of all we have about a 6 billion people on our side, you have about 500 million on you're side. good luck >:)
Also if the war does happen you'll har a loud war cry followed by a sharp and fatal pain to place that transfered air to the place were you spout your bullshit.
One day I hope are government goes mideval on your vegan asses. IN other words I hope they turn into dictators and kill all gays and the vegans because they're UNNATURAL! Even if we don't turn into dictators the freedom to do whatever you want will override what vegans want which is to make meat illegal. Decades from now slaughter houses will be more expanded and more animals will be killed for the growing population. so no matter how much you bitch, you'll never get you're way
This is such a sad video, the music was good. I am completly opposed to using animals for human benefit. Whether it's dairy meat and eggs zoos or animal tests.
Humans have wars. How could you ask if they are ethical. They also claim life is important while stuffing their mouths with meat. And how many times have you seen or heard mothers or fathers say they won't put up with something like a word. Yet they go on eating a murdered animal. Without thought. Ethical. Humans? The two words don't deserve to be together.
You siad in your video that if you say my father is alive because of animal experimentation then you'll say good for you a dog died so your father could live.OMG you just accidently answer my question. YOU VALUE ANIMALS THE SAME OR MORE THAN HUMANS!!!! HA HA I knew it.
@Gavspartan96 I value animals the same as humans. What of it. If you were in a fire I would try to get you both out. And deciding which to take out would be which one I found first. If I found both at the same time be prepared to be launched over my shoulder or dragged with a pet on your back. Not saying I am a fire fighter but the scenario would be played by you I am almost sure of it.
You can justify the treatment of animals as testing objects IF IT KEEPS HUMANS ALIVE LIKE MY FAMILY!!!!!!!! I don't give a crap if a gerble has viagra shoved up it's ass with a fucking seringe it saves my family.Listen I don't like animal testing but we have to keep it if you want HUMANS!!to stay ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fuck you.Bet your vegan dumbass didn't know that none of my family knew about it until my dad developed kidney faliure.Also just for your information, 93% of the world eats meat, only 7% don't. We omnivores aren't a race you are and you vegan bastards.Vegans should be illegal because it's not natural just like gay people.
P.S.I'm at an all you can eat meat buffet right now and I'm killing cats at the same time(but not dogs, I love dogs)I hope you fucking die
Don't worry I'll die someday. Not much of a wish seeing it is obvious that everyone will die someday. My life is herbivore not some two faced omnivore that doesn't know the side it came from. And like I am going to believe statistics or anything that a meat eater says
What does it feel like waiting in line carnivore. It means your not the top dog of the food chain. Herbivores are. Unless you include plants into life?
Really?Explain why a peta CEO uses insulin tested on dogs to keep HER alive. When asked about her hypocricy she said that she needed HER life to help animals. That my friends is hypocriscy. Personally I just hat hypocriscy, if you're gonna bag on us for testing animals it least walk the walk. Then even if I don't agree with you I'll still respect you.
Ah, a Pro-Test tactic (trying to bring PETA into it).
Since when did I give the impression I gave a damn about a pro vivisection organisation? (Yes PETA are). I even left a comment regarding one of PETA's members on a video + I did a blog including that elsewhere.
The dog claim yet again old vivisector claim, and thats not the only animal some claimed "saved my life" on insulin. There's more to the insulin story too also debunked in the mentioned books.
@Gavspartan96 Could possibly be the first time death has stared her/him in the face. After you have seen it, it gets easier to deal with. Everybody should prepare for it. It's inevitable.
I know what you vegan's are thinking a non vegan that likes animals OMFG. Yah I know and I'm that non vegan that likes animals.I have 2 dogs and also when medicene or anything doesn't require animals anymore fine don't test it on animals but until then we need animals to eat and to test medicene on.
Something I want people to keep in mind. Animals are not just used in testing the safety of drugs. They are used to figure out better surgical techniques, more effective ways of detecting certain diseases etc. and to solstice, you will probably be happy to hear that the lab I am in is not using animals currently, as there is no need currently.
This is something I want people to realize, the animals are not used needlessly in labs. If there is an other method that is effective, it is used.
We could go back & forth over every aspect of vivisection forever and what would it accomplish? You say animal advocates are liars; we say animal users are liars. Our goal is to relieve cruelty/suffering. You'll say lab animals have it great and that you relieve people's suffering. Animal research is inherently cruel and gives misleading results that result in death and injury to people. Here's a good article; copy to Search bar: Regulatory Affairs Journal (RAJ) Pharma - Are Humans the Best ...
While I agree with the first part of your statement I obviously disagree with the last. Like i have said before animals are not just used as models for testing medicines. A lot of basic research is done using animals and surgical techniques are developed through animal testing. Medicine testing is but one part. Something I want people to understand is that researchers do not enjoy using animals as models. They do it because it helps and is effective, where alternatives are useful they are used.
If a day comes where computer models and other alternatives can replace animal testing researches and animal activists will be happy. Because as science advances it will generate better techniques and more effective ones. But we are still not yet there (though you may disagree). Animal research has already helped in saving millions upon millions of live, animal and human, and will continue till the science is able to replace it.
From the article I cited, Reduce, Refine, Replace: "has been around for decades. Its principle has merit ... from an animal welfare perspective, but makes little scientific sense. .....if it is not scientifically valid to use a lot of animals, then it is not valid to use fewer.... If a practice does not work, there is little point in reducing or refining it.
Video on animal use for surgical skill:
Hans Ruesch in conversation with Dr Werner Hartinger
What's do disagree with about my saying, "Animal research is inherently cruel and gives misleading results that result in death and injury to people"?
Look at this vid: Huntingdon Life Sciences, Pure Evil!
According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications. Source: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20.
Not really, my Dad and my grandma and me have a form of genetic kidney disease. It's not as serious as kidney falure but there's a 50% chance I will get kidney falure or kidney cancer. Recently my granma developed kidney failure. What kept her alive during a 3 month period was dialisys(WHICH WAS TESTED ON ANIMALS) until she could get a new kidney. In some cases yes animal testing is inaccurate but in most cases it IS ACCURATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You disproved your own statement by saying, "In some cases yes animal testing is inaccurate but in most cases it is accurate." You can't have a science where results are hit or miss. Everything "tested" in animals has to be tested in humans...full experimentation...because animal results are inconclusive & misleading. People often die in such experiments because animals are not our models. Here's some info on medical breakthroughs:
Google: How Medical Breakthroughs were Really Discovered - PRISM
Humans are used for research, dishonestly. No other branch of science would get away with such illogic and insanity as animal research does. Why? Because animal research is an evil religion, NOT a science. The only thing it produces is suffering, and income for heartless egotists. The only right way to better human health is to study humans and do careful, honest clinical research and testing. Evil will never pay off in the long run.
"Humans are used for research, dishonestly" Ok yes, there have been past mistakes with this but in todays world this doesn't happen with respectable researchers.
How the hell is animal research a religion in the first place? Just go back to believing the lies that animal activists are telling you it will continue because it DOES help and it does save human and animal lives.
There will be a day in the future when science catches up and the alternatives will replace animals. I can't wait for that day because then the people who are ignorant to science will shut up and have nothing else to complain about. I bet you have never even talked with a researcher or even witnessed a research lab with your own eyes. Stop only believing what you see on the internet and actually pick up a book and learn something for yourself.
No i just get pissed because i have heard so many false and ignorant statements when it comes to science. So many things that animal activists put forward are false or only part of the truth. I don't care if you think ethically it is wrong that is your own conscience and does not change easily. I do however care when so many lies are told about research and science.
1. animal research is accurate
2. it saves animals lives and human lives
3. animal testing is neither cruel nor unnecessary
We don't agree. We've looked at evidence to disprove that and have come to a different conclusion than you have.
While I cannot get into your head, I think you only believe this because you believe it is for the benefit of man-kind. That is the impression I get from you. And while there shouldn't be any problem with caring for your own species, it should never be at the expense of another. They have no obligation towards us.
Ok, the reasons that I get so upset about this is, like i said, because there is so much false information out there and half-truths. I merely want people to have accurate information to make their judgments about animal research. I get pissed when people look at researches and see them as evil and cruel humans who enjoy torturing animals. This is not what they are.
I know animal activists don't like this statement but I will say it anyway......
Tell me doesn't the animal kingdom prey off the weak and exploit the weaknesses to farther their own species survival? They do what they can to survive. When we have millions upon millions of people and animals dying from disease that we can prevent thanks to animal research, I support it. I am part of research myself and can tell you from personal experience that animals in labs are treated with respect and are not tortured or beaten or shaken or all the other things that people seem to believe
Maybe humans should learn to treat each other better and not kill each other. Because animals in labs are shown more respect than what humans show each other on a daily basis.
fatmon, you actually sound like a decent person. But how do you rationalize this one:
In March 06 in London, six drug trial participants testing anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibody TGN1412 suffered multiple organ failure, nearly died, and may all have permanent immune system damage after just one dose.
cont... Studies in mice, rats, rabbits, & monkeys showed the drug to be safe & effective, with the human deaths attributed to a previously unknown biological effect on humans that did not arise in any of the animals testing phases. TGN1412 had produced an inflammatory cascade of KILLER T-cell activity in humans, while in animals it had produced an anti-inflammatory suppressor T-cell response in all tested species. At 500x doses, even primates were safe from the effects of the drug.
Yeah, me again ... I have to go out now, so will try to get back to this later. But fatmon, I beg you to free the animals in your lab and get them in to loving homes. Work with people and be honest with them.
Well i am reading about TGN1412 trying to understand it and everything that happened but i don't have much time right now, school is getting busy. But from what I have already read about it, it seems as though the pre-clinical and the study on the men was carried out and planned very poorly. And there was a study done that has an explanation on why these reactions were not seen in animal trials.....
The study found that when a 'memory' T-cell was affected by the TGN1412 it caused them to travel to tissues where they are not needed and caused damage to these tissues. In an adult human, "like the ones in the trial" about 50% of the T-cells are memory T-cells. But in lab animals they have very, very few memory T-cells because they are kept in a sterile environment. So that is why they did not have a reaction like the human trials. So not enough adequate research was done before the trials.
FDA: 92% of drugs tested safe & effective in animals & in vitro fail during human trial.
Over 1/2 the approved 8% are soon withdrawn or relabeled for side effects.
Another case: Cholesterol lowering Baycol, tested in 5 animal species, killed 100 people before the study was halted. Rats are 200x more resistant to the fatality. Consensual research with patients is the only way to be scientific, & honesty must rule. With all new treatments people are test subjects; animal tests are deception.
Could you show me to where the FDA said this? I want to see the actual statement not ones from other sites. Because as I have quickly found out, animal rights groups often misquote/leave out/take out of context what people say. Im looking into the baycol drug.
Of the 2000 drugs developed since 1961 less than 40 have been withdrawn in the UK, USA, France and Germany and only 10 have been withdrawn from all these countries.
Fatmon implies that PEOPLE arent reliable test subjects for PEOPLE. But his answer is that even more erroneous test results from ANIMALS are needed. If animal testing is not at fault for all the people damaged & killed by new drugs every year then what is? The term Lab Animal should only be a shameful memory. To EldaSky: With thousands of labs worldwide torturing & maiming untold numbers of animals daily for decade upon decade, if animal research brought cures, we would have NO illness now.
That is in no way what I am implying! It is a matter of statistics. There were far too few test subjects to be able to predict that would happen.
"...if animal research brought cures, we would have NO illness now" Talk about an ignorant statement. You make it seem like disease is a very simple thing, that cancer is simple, AIDS is simple. So from this statement you would say that if we tested on humans we would have no disease now!
Plus i might add that there are many, many different things that can cause adverse affects when a drug is on the market. It depends on multiple drug interactions, certain genetic differences that are not predictable, dosage of the drug taken by people, etc. It is not possible to test for these even if humans were used instead of animals.
It really hurts to see those cats locked up like that,I think "Oh,well,what if that was my cat?" I wouldn't want him like that,so I think we need to try and save them from unnecessary animal testing,I only think animal testing is "okay" if we REALLY need it,not some bull shit crap that we don't need.Say,if there is a cure for some incurable disease,but we need to test it on a rat,I think that would be accepted.That could actually help us.Sorry if you disagree.
My personal opinion,Although you have some points,I say it can be accurate at some times and can be inaccurate at others,but it is cruel,I think animal experiments are crueler and unnecessary,but never the less,just again,my personal opinion.
I can't get over the outright lies by the vivisectionists. From fatmon: "...the drug produced the same results as animal trials." Oh really?.... Vioxx was heart protective in several animal species, yet it caused permanent heart damage to 320,000 people and KILLED 140,000 people. Same results? So, the 460,000 damaged or killed by Vioxx were what ... just part of the "sacrifice" to the vivisector gods?
Look, in the human trials when they tested on them before they put it out on the market. The same number of humans were tested as animals and had the same results. But when the drug was taken by 80 million people they had problems that would have never been able to be caught in the testing phase. Im not saying that its acceptable to lose 140,000 people, and that is why the drug was taken away, but it is not the fault of animal testing that caused these problems.
To the geniuses in here who say animal testing is necessary to save humans: VIOXX, TGN1412 & Baycol are just 3 of the 92% of animal tested drugs that FAIL human trials each year. From 2000-04, anti-inflammatory VIOXX caused 320,000 serious heart problems and 140,000 deaths worldwide, yet was not only safe but protective for the heart in several different animal studies. Ill bet some of those 460,000 people and their families are sorry they had faith in this sick RELIGION: Animal Research.
Do you realize that before these drugs are put on the market they were tested on the same amount if not more humans and the drug VIOXX produced the same results as animal trials? The drug VIOXX helped 80 million people so those adverse affects only happened to about .5% of all users of the drug! When drugs are out in public there are so many different variables to consider i.e other medications, illness, genetics etc. not just the failure of the drug itself.
With all the toxics we dump into the environment we've all become "lab rats."
Let go of the poor animals in the cages in buildings, and start looking at the effects of all the poisoned people walking around getting cancer from their shampoo and what not.
We should be lobbying for a cleaner earth as CANCER PREVENTION instead of using animals to find cure for diseases we humans engineer or otherwise encourage.
So your theory is just let kids die from diseases they were born with, let the people who dont have access to sanitary water just die becuase we shouldn't bother with finding a cure for the diseases. NO WE NEED TO DO BOTH! Yes there are a lot of things humans brought upon themselves but how dare you tell me we shouldn't try to help innocent kids who did nothing to deserve to be born with AIDS. The innocent person who was born with a genetic disorder. CANCER is not the only thing killing people.
Its an obligation of humans to help humans. I am sorry but I dont give a darn what you say, any species values their own over another species. We do what we can to help our own survive. I find animal necessary and accurate and I have no problem with it (seeing as I am already in a research lab). There will be a day when we no longer need animals in research but that day is not here yet. But it will come when the science is there and not before.
You didn't answer my question. But that's perfectly fine, as I can tell that you are afraid of the answer. No species has any obligation to another. Every species has the right to not be exploited by any other. Disease is brought unto ourselves and it is up to us to quit our disgusting habits. It is not up to a species that has vast biological differences to save our species.
You should understand that quite well. Unfortunately, you are desensitized.
Yeah well I never said that any other species has an obligation to us. I am just saying that we have an obligation to save other humans. Im sorry that we have different views on what is right. I am going to stop talking about that because it is obvious we arn't going to change each others minds about that. However, I just want people to realize the facts about animal testing and how it does work and is an effective model. Also, to clear up the many misconceptions about researchers.
You are just an ignorant, brainwashed little girl who doesn't know what she is talking about. Tell me how many advanced level biology classes have you taken, how many research labs have you been in. READ A FUCKING TEXT BOOK. Stop believing what you see on the internet and learn it yourself.
I have a different opinion than you so I must be a ignorant, brainwashed and a "little girl" which, might I add, is sexist. I've researched something and came to a different conclusion than you so I must be uneducated. That is petty. If this is your way of thinking, I don't want anything to do with you; you obviously can't have a conversation like an adult.
What ever, that is not a sexist comment, it is just like any other comment. Anyway I am frustrated because people believe lies and feel they can talk about how something is false when they don't understand the topic. I trust the people who have spent their whole lives studying biology. They understand what they are doing and if it didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. But believe whatever the heck you want to believe. Animal research will stay around and be used anyway because it works.
It IS sexist. You attempted to belittle me by calling me a little girl and went on to describe me as uneducated.
You put too much trust into people.
As stem cell research has more support, you will see how much we progress once we start relying on human cells, rather than living, breathing animals that have no connection to us. How can you compare human anatomy to any kind of rodent?
See that last comment shows you dont understand biology. "How can you compare human anatomy to any kind of rodent?" Please take a genetics course, an animal biology course and you will see the similarities between them. You are just looking at the cover of a book and think you understand what the whole thing is about. I am sorry again if you think that was a sexiest comment, I truly am but I have said the same thing to another man once. I also agree we will make amazing progress with stem cells.
Please show me to where you find your information. Animals cells and genetics are far more similar then you know. So are you telling me that all biology and genetics books are wrong? Tell me the difference between the two right now. Please go ahead.
Animal DNA is different to human DNA. Yes, it has helped us to some extent in the past, i guess.. But Animal anatomy is different to human anatomy. For example, you ever been to a vet? I mean come on, what could potentially kill them, could save us. I learnt it in school, btw.. Maybe you'll say that they teach bullshit but that's where i'm going to get my education.
Also, of course animal anatomy is different to human anatomy, we are still animals like them though. They even have different hearts i'm sure, but that doesn't stop us saying that they have one. So yes, scientists will think it's okay to test on animals because they are similar to us, but when you ask how that is justified, then it is because they are not like us, or because they need to. But as far as i know it's not all that accurate, or maybe i'm wrong.
Yes it is true somethings that harm animals dont harm us and vice-versa. However, researchers are full aware of this and will take it into account when doing the research. So they might use a different animal because the toxicity of things are different from animal to animal just like animal to human. There are however, many lies about certain medications and animal research. Watch my video response to this video to see a few.
But how do you think they found out that certain medications don't work on animals in the first place? So many failures and yet it's just not enough evidence to get through to the stubborn people, that just don't want to hear it.
I tried watching your video but it isn't working right now (you know how it pretends not to be 'available'? Urgh). I will try again later so I can accept it as a video response (which should have happened automatically...).
That's pretty funny! A vet would never work on a human. A doctor will rarely work on an animal, although is severe cases, they might at least try. But it's funny to think about that.
Thats like saying a cardiac surgeon would never do surgery on the brain and a neurosurgeon would never do surgery on the heart. Yeah they understand about they human body and how all parts of it works. But they do not have specific enough information to perform that job.
the Center for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, American Physiological Society, American Veterinary Medical Association, Society for Neuroscience, Society of Toxicology, and Association of Medical Research Charities ...........
all support animal research and say it is accurate? KnittyGrittyNatch dont think I am targeting you I just want my questions answered. Where are you getting your information for how animal research is incorrect????
By listing a few organizations that support animal testing, what do you think you are proving? Are you implying that alternatives are not being supported in medicine? In Europe, animal testing is outlawed. Are you implying that they are less advanced or are hindered of any progress because they do not test on animals?
If I remembered my sources for this video, I would tell you. My information comes from various sources.
It's cute how, because I have found information that contradicts what you believe, you think I must be lying. And yet, you do nothing to prove that I am incorrect except to say that animal testing is supported by some organizations.
Europe Animal testing for cosmetics was outlawed not for other research. I support this because cosmetics is not something I care about and I do believe we can use the alternatives completely for these tests.
Medical testing alternatives are used wherever possible but they cannot completely replace animal testing yet. Researchers would be happy if they didnt have to use animals for testing since its very expensive, takes a long time and they dont enjoy using animals but it is necessary.
Oh and regarding rats... My fiend was given a rat by her neighbor who couldn't keep it any more. I had no idea how intelligent and sweet they could be. She let her rat run around her place and I was able to call her over to me on the couch. She would crawl up my leg into my lap or arms. It was incredible! The rat also liked to sleep with my friend. I had no idea....
Absolutely! My aunt has rats and they're just like little people. I love their little hands (they have pads on their hands and they hold things just like humans). Once you meet a rat, your whole perception of them changes. They are no longer diseased, smelly pests (that outlook is actually really sad).
There is a hooded rat in this video named Princess Sophia. She was my aunt's rat. (:
When someone says their family member is alive due to animal testing they are wrong. Animal testing is as accurate as flipping a coin. In recent history there is nothing that is confirmed that was discovered from animal testing. It's misguided science.
Those points aside, even if it were accurate I am vehemently against it. Who is anyone to decide what species is worthy of life?
But the bottom line is animal testing is a multi-billion dollar industry that yields no results.
That's fine and dandy if you've met 'hypocritical' vegans but veganism isn't hypocritical. I've already explained the goals of veganism, not the goals of individuals.
I don't mean to be rude but, honestly, who the fuck are you to say what is vegan or not? If you want to play vegan police, you need to go vegan first. Sorry, hun.
I hate to repeat myself but you're obviously going to make me...That is nothing new.
'In some places, it is tricky (but usually possible) to go vegan but organic produce doesn't even exist. Are they hypocritical for still trying?'
As I've already said, it is up to the vegan to decide if it violates an animal's right not to be exploited. It is not hypocritical if it accomplishes the goal of veganism.
Also, what is the option for people where organic is not available? In some places, fruit is actually scarce. Their options for vegetables are celery, carrots and onions. In some places, it is tricky (but usually possible) to go vegan but organic produce doesn't even exist. Are they hypocritical for still trying?
[cont'd] It is up to the vegan to decide if this violates an animal's right not to be exploited. I don't think it does. However, do I still think it is harmful? Yes. So do I buy organic? Yes.
Now, I've told it to you straight. I'm sure you'll complain, you won't like my answer, probably say I avoided your questions entirely and say it isn't 'morally right', although it's not you that holds these values, but rather, vegans. But I have given you my answer, which is no, it does not exploit animals.
Arrogant and self-righteous? That is ridiculous. Vegans are no more likely to be arrogant or self-righteous than anyone else. The only ones claiming that vegans are morally superior are non-vegans.
I also mentioned that everyone should buy organic if it's available, vegan or not.
I wouldn't say a vegan is hypocritical, even if they eat cooked food such as bread. The goal of veganism can be put several ways (although, often taken out of context): animal liberation, animal rights and, most of all, the end of animal exploitation. You don't necessarily have to go raw to obtain these goals. Omitting meat, eggs, dairy, honey, etc is how we obtain them, among other methods of activism.
I used to go to a health food store for my produce and I asked questions there as well; so it is possible if your town/city doesn't have a farmers' market.
I go to the farmers' market weekly, sometimes biweekly. It is incredibly easy to ask questions. Also, if you're not used to it, you can actually taste (sometimes even smell) the pesticides.
I started eating/buying this way in January and only meant to go raw for a month. It looks like I will be staying this way-- I love it. (:
I do not go to the super market. Are you sure you know what a farmers' market is? You know, people gather in one spot, set up a stand with their fruits and vegetables and you have the opportunity to ask questions?
I should be used to how slow anti-vegan trolls are by now. Hmm.
Typical Leftwinger. You go on a Pro-Life site saying to Murder babies while saying the trade off of a dog for a human is wrong. Yep, very typical human hater.
and basically, it's YOU idiots that come on here and spout shit as if vegans are bad in the first place.
I never see this girl insult anyone. Even if she did, it's a result of idiots insulting her.
So slander all ya want. 'cause I accept the real shit as a meat-consumer, even if it makes meat-eating or vivisection seem really damaging. I'm open to inner change.
Really? So how many animals died for the mango I just ate? ;)
FYI, I would be a frugivore if it weren't for the spinach. Where does my spinach come from? The farmer's market! I know where my food comes from. Do you?
You(paraphrasing): It doesn't matter! Just because you think someone else kills more, your still better? You really must not care for all living things.
Vegan: "i already said theres already scientific debate whether insects are sentient or not"
LOOOOOOOOL ! so she goes from defending her ideas, to backing in a corner and then just saying they really aren't valuable after all. Priceless!
I know about the hunting thing. If you just took all your food from plants, and what you kill (ooo such a terrible word) you would be doing sooooo much more than they. And then the wildlife programs paid for BY hunters. its funny how the people being attacked by whining bitches behind a screen are doing more than they ever will! LOLZ!!!
Hey! I thought of that too, I just never really did it. You just have to let them be. Sit together in their huddle and tell each other how awesome they are. "Don't worry hun. We're always right. We'll never be as low as those murderes. We prove them all wrong. Now pass the carrot, so I can pretend like I'm making a difference.' LOL!
And b t w, you completely owned this page! LOL! I think KnittyGrittyinherSnatch mt need to start censoring. Very embarrassing to her, veganbutterfly, and their causes.
You know I used to try to debate, and try to reason with these people (e.g. vegans, vegetarians, even Peta) all the time. I closedi my account and just started all over though, because it was so ridiculous. I don't think they have jobs, besides sitting on their lazy asses, so they can claim how much better they are than everyone else. Such arrogant fucks. But, then I realized how big of a minority they are; how no one takes them seriously. Just a little ant hill on a mountain of common sense.
He is giving me SO much material for my "Stupid Things Omnis Say" list that I intend to share on various sites and vegan forums. I can send you a copy when I'm done it if you want :)
I usually don't have so much coming from just one person.
My friend has a one year old child. She cannot wield a scapel, run a saw, or conduct an autopsy....I guess she is "inferior" and should be tested on?
I know someone who is caring for a mentally handicapped person, who cannot wield a scapel, run a saw, conduct an autopsy, or even say his own name.....so I guess he is "inferior" and should be tested on?
So you believe in "might makes right" then. Do you know what evils you can do with that belief? Just look what Hitler did.
You do not see a difference between direct and indirect?
Tell me something.
Cars pollute the environment which harms humans and non-humans. Does this mean that it is justified for drivers to purposely run over humans and non-humans?
So why is the average vegan cholesterol level in the healthiest range? The average omni cholesterol level is so high, risk of heart disease is extremely high. But vegan cholesterol is so low that it is almost impossible to get heart disease (unless that vegan smokes).
No, most crops are grown to feed to animals raised for food. Going vegan means using less plants because you are eating soy and grain directly as opposed to feeding large amounts to animals to eat their flesh.
If you really care about animals killed for crops, you could help reduce those numbers by going vegan.
No it's not about equality. No one is equal to anyone. I'm not even equal to you. You aren't equal to your neighbour. We are all different. Unique. And that's something to appreciate, not hate.
Although we are all different, we all deserve EQUAL CONSIDERATION.
For example, even though a child doesn't have the right to vote, her pain and suffering should matter as much as an adults.
Of course you need cholesterol. But what you don't need is DIETARY cholesterol. Do some damn research. If you have a healthy liver, it produces all the cholesterol you need. Any cholesterol consumed from food is excess.
LOL exactly. Let's see you chase down an animal with your speedy predator legs, pounce on your prey, sink your sharp predator claws and huge fangs into your prey and tear it apart and consume it, flesh, blood, fur, bone, guts, and let's see you remain in good health.
Guess what happens when natural meat-eaters eat lots of cholesterol from meat? NOTHING. They DON'T get clogged arteries, we do.
There are other ways to get B12 than fortified foods. I don't supplement or eat fortified foods and I've been a raw vegan for a few months now. Harley (durianriders on YouTube) has been a raw vegan for several years now and he's never supplemented. He's in the best shape I've ever seen anyone in!
Oh I know, this is just where I get most of it. I eat plenty of raw foods myself, ESPECIALLY now that I'm pregnant and having aversions to most cooked food, and cravings for lots of raw fruit and veggies! Maybe my baby is trying to make me into a raw food vegan too ;)
Oh my gosh! That's great. I've been reading about vegan pregnancy a lot lately and I'm so glad to see people are beginning to support vegan pregnancies, breast feeding and parenting. I plan to eat mostly raw foods too! If not all. :3
That came out long ago, and its nothing but another sensationalized article. The study says that low B-12 levels can be associated with brain shrinkage, not vegan diets. Yes, you can wind up with a B-12 deficiency on a vegan diet if you don't eat correctly. You can also wind up with a B-12 deficiency eating the standard American diet. DUMBASS.
And I'm 27. But you're right, this conversation is becoming childish. I'll stop now. Go enjoy your steak, I hope you also enjoy your heart disease :)
SIGH. If you would actually do research, instead of pulling some random article from t he SUN out of y our ass, you would see what causes the brain shrinkage is low B-12 levels.
Of course that would happen to someone like you, since you're not smart enough to plan your diet and eat healthy, if you go vegan you'd probably live on lemonade and potato chips. But I get enough B12. So I'm out of risk.
Support Vivisection!!
Elkabong53708 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Merci de consulter le site :
crimes-caches.blogspot.com
Pour lutter efficacement contre l'expérimentation animale, il est vital de visionner la vidéo intégrale sur le sujet appelée "crimes cachés-hidden crimes" qui apporte des arguments scientifiques et donne les preuves que la vivisection est inutile et est une vaste fraude médicale, alibi pour récolter des sommes astronomiques qui vont aux firmes pharmaceutiques, avec la complicité des Etats et des Médias!
"Rien ne sort de bon du Mal!"
Chivato2001 1 year ago
When was the last time you volunteered for a medical study on new medications?
CRaschNet 1 year ago
Also when I say that it means I'm gonna slit your neck with my cow bone knife. Scared vegan. Also I like to hunt deer with my uncle so I have no problem shooting or stabbing you, vegan.
Gavspartan96 1 year ago
@krrruptidsoless
If the Vegan and the Omnivores were to ever got war we would kick your asses by 2 obvious reasons. First of all people who eat meat have mor muscle and we're not pale like you guys. Second of all we have about a 6 billion people on our side, you have about 500 million on you're side. good luck >:)
Also if the war does happen you'll har a loud war cry followed by a sharp and fatal pain to place that transfered air to the place were you spout your bullshit.
P.S. watch ya back
Gavspartan96 1 year ago
@krrruptidsoless
One day I hope are government goes mideval on your vegan asses. IN other words I hope they turn into dictators and kill all gays and the vegans because they're UNNATURAL! Even if we don't turn into dictators the freedom to do whatever you want will override what vegans want which is to make meat illegal. Decades from now slaughter houses will be more expanded and more animals will be killed for the growing population. so no matter how much you bitch, you'll never get you're way
Gavspartan96 1 year ago
This is such a sad video, the music was good. I am completly opposed to using animals for human benefit. Whether it's dairy meat and eggs zoos or animal tests.
Veganbookworm 2 years ago
Humans have wars. How could you ask if they are ethical. They also claim life is important while stuffing their mouths with meat. And how many times have you seen or heard mothers or fathers say they won't put up with something like a word. Yet they go on eating a murdered animal. Without thought. Ethical. Humans? The two words don't deserve to be together.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
You siad in your video that if you say my father is alive because of animal experimentation then you'll say good for you a dog died so your father could live.OMG you just accidently answer my question. YOU VALUE ANIMALS THE SAME OR MORE THAN HUMANS!!!! HA HA I knew it.
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
Btw, are you also Spartanquail57? You seem very similar and have spartan in your name.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
No but I would like to meet this spartan quail57
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
@Gavspartan96 I value animals the same as humans. What of it. If you were in a fire I would try to get you both out. And deciding which to take out would be which one I found first. If I found both at the same time be prepared to be launched over my shoulder or dragged with a pet on your back. Not saying I am a fire fighter but the scenario would be played by you I am almost sure of it.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
You can justify the treatment of animals as testing objects IF IT KEEPS HUMANS ALIVE LIKE MY FAMILY!!!!!!!! I don't give a crap if a gerble has viagra shoved up it's ass with a fucking seringe it saves my family.Listen I don't like animal testing but we have to keep it if you want HUMANS!!to stay ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
@Gavspartan96
Or humans should be banned from breeding people with genetic diseases.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
@krrruptidsoless
fuck you.Bet your vegan dumbass didn't know that none of my family knew about it until my dad developed kidney faliure.Also just for your information, 93% of the world eats meat, only 7% don't. We omnivores aren't a race you are and you vegan bastards.Vegans should be illegal because it's not natural just like gay people.
P.S.I'm at an all you can eat meat buffet right now and I'm killing cats at the same time(but not dogs, I love dogs)I hope you fucking die
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
@Gavspartan96
Don't worry I'll die someday. Not much of a wish seeing it is obvious that everyone will die someday. My life is herbivore not some two faced omnivore that doesn't know the side it came from. And like I am going to believe statistics or anything that a meat eater says
What does it feel like waiting in line carnivore. It means your not the top dog of the food chain. Herbivores are. Unless you include plants into life?
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
@krrrruptidsoless OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH that hurts so badddd dude that's like the worst comeback ever plus meat eaters outnumber you 10 to 1 so what ever
Gavspartan96 8 months ago
2:17 to 2:23, that is not true at all. Dogs didn't help advance medicine at all.
And unfortunately, the ethical arguments are ignored by the majority because they really do believe vivisection benefits lives.
All these beat pro vivisectionist arguments:
Slaughter of the Innocent.
Naked Empress (for more of the history and tactics of the crooks)
Vivisection or Science.
Animal Experimentation a harvest of shame.
Vivisection Unveiled.
Lethal Laws.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
I have these books, read them, reading them again, also still reading those idiots online defending vivisection, and these books still refute them.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
Really?Explain why a peta CEO uses insulin tested on dogs to keep HER alive. When asked about her hypocricy she said that she needed HER life to help animals. That my friends is hypocriscy. Personally I just hat hypocriscy, if you're gonna bag on us for testing animals it least walk the walk. Then even if I don't agree with you I'll still respect you.
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
Sorry about the type-o's and about my comments being out of order
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
Ah, a Pro-Test tactic (trying to bring PETA into it).
Since when did I give the impression I gave a damn about a pro vivisection organisation? (Yes PETA are). I even left a comment regarding one of PETA's members on a video + I did a blog including that elsewhere.
The dog claim yet again old vivisector claim, and thats not the only animal some claimed "saved my life" on insulin. There's more to the insulin story too also debunked in the mentioned books.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
@Gavspartan96 Could possibly be the first time death has stared her/him in the face. After you have seen it, it gets easier to deal with. Everybody should prepare for it. It's inevitable.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
I know what you vegan's are thinking a non vegan that likes animals OMFG. Yah I know and I'm that non vegan that likes animals.I have 2 dogs and also when medicene or anything doesn't require animals anymore fine don't test it on animals but until then we need animals to eat and to test medicene on.
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
Nonsense. You don't even know the history of vivisection. Go educate yourself before coming here to lie or claim to know these things.
Or maybe you do know and are posing as yet another pro vivisectionist?
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
Something I want people to keep in mind. Animals are not just used in testing the safety of drugs. They are used to figure out better surgical techniques, more effective ways of detecting certain diseases etc. and to solstice, you will probably be happy to hear that the lab I am in is not using animals currently, as there is no need currently.
This is something I want people to realize, the animals are not used needlessly in labs. If there is an other method that is effective, it is used.
fatmon 2 years ago
We could go back & forth over every aspect of vivisection forever and what would it accomplish? You say animal advocates are liars; we say animal users are liars. Our goal is to relieve cruelty/suffering. You'll say lab animals have it great and that you relieve people's suffering. Animal research is inherently cruel and gives misleading results that result in death and injury to people. Here's a good article; copy to Search bar: Regulatory Affairs Journal (RAJ) Pharma - Are Humans the Best ...
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
*I meant you should Google: Regulatory Affairs Journal (RAJ) Pharma - Are Humans the Best ...
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
While I agree with the first part of your statement I obviously disagree with the last. Like i have said before animals are not just used as models for testing medicines. A lot of basic research is done using animals and surgical techniques are developed through animal testing. Medicine testing is but one part. Something I want people to understand is that researchers do not enjoy using animals as models. They do it because it helps and is effective, where alternatives are useful they are used.
fatmon 2 years ago
If a day comes where computer models and other alternatives can replace animal testing researches and animal activists will be happy. Because as science advances it will generate better techniques and more effective ones. But we are still not yet there (though you may disagree). Animal research has already helped in saving millions upon millions of live, animal and human, and will continue till the science is able to replace it.
fatmon 2 years ago
I've heard that mantra for 25 yrs.
From the article I cited, Reduce, Refine, Replace: "has been around for decades. Its principle has merit ... from an animal welfare perspective, but makes little scientific sense. .....if it is not scientifically valid to use a lot of animals, then it is not valid to use fewer.... If a practice does not work, there is little point in reducing or refining it.
Video on animal use for surgical skill:
Hans Ruesch in conversation with Dr Werner Hartinger
1221solstice2012 2 years ago 3
What's do disagree with about my saying, "Animal research is inherently cruel and gives misleading results that result in death and injury to people"?
Look at this vid: Huntingdon Life Sciences, Pure Evil!
According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications. Source: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
Not really, my Dad and my grandma and me have a form of genetic kidney disease. It's not as serious as kidney falure but there's a 50% chance I will get kidney falure or kidney cancer. Recently my granma developed kidney failure. What kept her alive during a 3 month period was dialisys(WHICH WAS TESTED ON ANIMALS) until she could get a new kidney. In some cases yes animal testing is inaccurate but in most cases it IS ACCURATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gavspartan96 2 years ago
You disproved your own statement by saying, "In some cases yes animal testing is inaccurate but in most cases it is accurate." You can't have a science where results are hit or miss. Everything "tested" in animals has to be tested in humans...full experimentation...because animal results are inconclusive & misleading. People often die in such experiments because animals are not our models. Here's some info on medical breakthroughs:
Google: How Medical Breakthroughs were Really Discovered - PRISM
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
@Gavspartan96 You people still breed. Knowing you pass this on. I'm glad I chose to go extinct.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
Humans are used for research, dishonestly. No other branch of science would get away with such illogic and insanity as animal research does. Why? Because animal research is an evil religion, NOT a science. The only thing it produces is suffering, and income for heartless egotists. The only right way to better human health is to study humans and do careful, honest clinical research and testing. Evil will never pay off in the long run.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago 2
"Humans are used for research, dishonestly" Ok yes, there have been past mistakes with this but in todays world this doesn't happen with respectable researchers.
How the hell is animal research a religion in the first place? Just go back to believing the lies that animal activists are telling you it will continue because it DOES help and it does save human and animal lives.
fatmon 2 years ago
There will be a day in the future when science catches up and the alternatives will replace animals. I can't wait for that day because then the people who are ignorant to science will shut up and have nothing else to complain about. I bet you have never even talked with a researcher or even witnessed a research lab with your own eyes. Stop only believing what you see on the internet and actually pick up a book and learn something for yourself.
fatmon 2 years ago
fatmon: Wow, what a large assumption. That sounds like someone who can't deal with the load of information that has been put forth.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
No i just get pissed because i have heard so many false and ignorant statements when it comes to science. So many things that animal activists put forward are false or only part of the truth. I don't care if you think ethically it is wrong that is your own conscience and does not change easily. I do however care when so many lies are told about research and science.
1. animal research is accurate
2. it saves animals lives and human lives
3. animal testing is neither cruel nor unnecessary
fatmon 2 years ago
We don't agree. We've looked at evidence to disprove that and have come to a different conclusion than you have.
While I cannot get into your head, I think you only believe this because you believe it is for the benefit of man-kind. That is the impression I get from you. And while there shouldn't be any problem with caring for your own species, it should never be at the expense of another. They have no obligation towards us.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Ok, the reasons that I get so upset about this is, like i said, because there is so much false information out there and half-truths. I merely want people to have accurate information to make their judgments about animal research. I get pissed when people look at researches and see them as evil and cruel humans who enjoy torturing animals. This is not what they are.
I know animal activists don't like this statement but I will say it anyway......
fatmon 2 years ago
Tell me doesn't the animal kingdom prey off the weak and exploit the weaknesses to farther their own species survival? They do what they can to survive. When we have millions upon millions of people and animals dying from disease that we can prevent thanks to animal research, I support it. I am part of research myself and can tell you from personal experience that animals in labs are treated with respect and are not tortured or beaten or shaken or all the other things that people seem to believe
fatmon 2 years ago
Maybe humans should learn to treat each other better and not kill each other. Because animals in labs are shown more respect than what humans show each other on a daily basis.
fatmon 2 years ago
fatmon, you actually sound like a decent person. But how do you rationalize this one:
In March 06 in London, six drug trial participants testing anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibody TGN1412 suffered multiple organ failure, nearly died, and may all have permanent immune system damage after just one dose.
To be continued.....
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
cont... Studies in mice, rats, rabbits, & monkeys showed the drug to be safe & effective, with the human deaths attributed to a previously unknown biological effect on humans that did not arise in any of the animals testing phases. TGN1412 had produced an inflammatory cascade of KILLER T-cell activity in humans, while in animals it had produced an anti-inflammatory suppressor T-cell response in all tested species. At 500x doses, even primates were safe from the effects of the drug.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
Yeah, me again ... I have to go out now, so will try to get back to this later. But fatmon, I beg you to free the animals in your lab and get them in to loving homes. Work with people and be honest with them.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
Well i am reading about TGN1412 trying to understand it and everything that happened but i don't have much time right now, school is getting busy. But from what I have already read about it, it seems as though the pre-clinical and the study on the men was carried out and planned very poorly. And there was a study done that has an explanation on why these reactions were not seen in animal trials.....
fatmon 2 years ago
The study found that when a 'memory' T-cell was affected by the TGN1412 it caused them to travel to tissues where they are not needed and caused damage to these tissues. In an adult human, "like the ones in the trial" about 50% of the T-cells are memory T-cells. But in lab animals they have very, very few memory T-cells because they are kept in a sterile environment. So that is why they did not have a reaction like the human trials. So not enough adequate research was done before the trials.
fatmon 2 years ago
FDA: 92% of drugs tested safe & effective in animals & in vitro fail during human trial.
Over 1/2 the approved 8% are soon withdrawn or relabeled for side effects.
Another case: Cholesterol lowering Baycol, tested in 5 animal species, killed 100 people before the study was halted. Rats are 200x more resistant to the fatality. Consensual research with patients is the only way to be scientific, & honesty must rule. With all new treatments people are test subjects; animal tests are deception.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
Could you show me to where the FDA said this? I want to see the actual statement not ones from other sites. Because as I have quickly found out, animal rights groups often misquote/leave out/take out of context what people say. Im looking into the baycol drug.
Of the 2000 drugs developed since 1961 less than 40 have been withdrawn in the UK, USA, France and Germany and only 10 have been withdrawn from all these countries.
fatmon 2 years ago
Fatmon implies that PEOPLE arent reliable test subjects for PEOPLE. But his answer is that even more erroneous test results from ANIMALS are needed. If animal testing is not at fault for all the people damaged & killed by new drugs every year then what is? The term Lab Animal should only be a shameful memory. To EldaSky: With thousands of labs worldwide torturing & maiming untold numbers of animals daily for decade upon decade, if animal research brought cures, we would have NO illness now.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago 4
That is in no way what I am implying! It is a matter of statistics. There were far too few test subjects to be able to predict that would happen.
"...if animal research brought cures, we would have NO illness now" Talk about an ignorant statement. You make it seem like disease is a very simple thing, that cancer is simple, AIDS is simple. So from this statement you would say that if we tested on humans we would have no disease now!
fatmon 2 years ago
Plus i might add that there are many, many different things that can cause adverse affects when a drug is on the market. It depends on multiple drug interactions, certain genetic differences that are not predictable, dosage of the drug taken by people, etc. It is not possible to test for these even if humans were used instead of animals.
fatmon 2 years ago
It really hurts to see those cats locked up like that,I think "Oh,well,what if that was my cat?" I wouldn't want him like that,so I think we need to try and save them from unnecessary animal testing,I only think animal testing is "okay" if we REALLY need it,not some bull shit crap that we don't need.Say,if there is a cure for some incurable disease,but we need to test it on a rat,I think that would be accepted.That could actually help us.Sorry if you disagree.
EldaSky 2 years ago
I do disagree. Only because
1. Animal research is not accurate
2. Animals have no obligation towards humans to 'save' us
Animal testing is cruel and unnecessary.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
My personal opinion,Although you have some points,I say it can be accurate at some times and can be inaccurate at others,but it is cruel,I think animal experiments are crueler and unnecessary,but never the less,just again,my personal opinion.
EldaSky 2 years ago
I can't get over the outright lies by the vivisectionists. From fatmon: "...the drug produced the same results as animal trials." Oh really?.... Vioxx was heart protective in several animal species, yet it caused permanent heart damage to 320,000 people and KILLED 140,000 people. Same results? So, the 460,000 damaged or killed by Vioxx were what ... just part of the "sacrifice" to the vivisector gods?
1221solstice2012 2 years ago 2
Look, in the human trials when they tested on them before they put it out on the market. The same number of humans were tested as animals and had the same results. But when the drug was taken by 80 million people they had problems that would have never been able to be caught in the testing phase. Im not saying that its acceptable to lose 140,000 people, and that is why the drug was taken away, but it is not the fault of animal testing that caused these problems.
fatmon 2 years ago
To the geniuses in here who say animal testing is necessary to save humans: VIOXX, TGN1412 & Baycol are just 3 of the 92% of animal tested drugs that FAIL human trials each year. From 2000-04, anti-inflammatory VIOXX caused 320,000 serious heart problems and 140,000 deaths worldwide, yet was not only safe but protective for the heart in several different animal studies. Ill bet some of those 460,000 people and their families are sorry they had faith in this sick RELIGION: Animal Research.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago 3
Awesome! Do you mind if I put this in my other video about vivisection?
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
That would be great...I'm so frustrated that so far I haven't learned how to make my own videos. I'll send you more info in a private message.
1221solstice2012 2 years ago
Do you realize that before these drugs are put on the market they were tested on the same amount if not more humans and the drug VIOXX produced the same results as animal trials? The drug VIOXX helped 80 million people so those adverse affects only happened to about .5% of all users of the drug! When drugs are out in public there are so many different variables to consider i.e other medications, illness, genetics etc. not just the failure of the drug itself.
fatmon 2 years ago
With all the toxics we dump into the environment we've all become "lab rats."
Let go of the poor animals in the cages in buildings, and start looking at the effects of all the poisoned people walking around getting cancer from their shampoo and what not.
We should be lobbying for a cleaner earth as CANCER PREVENTION instead of using animals to find cure for diseases we humans engineer or otherwise encourage.
restlessbones 2 years ago
Well said!
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
So your theory is just let kids die from diseases they were born with, let the people who dont have access to sanitary water just die becuase we shouldn't bother with finding a cure for the diseases. NO WE NEED TO DO BOTH! Yes there are a lot of things humans brought upon themselves but how dare you tell me we shouldn't try to help innocent kids who did nothing to deserve to be born with AIDS. The innocent person who was born with a genetic disorder. CANCER is not the only thing killing people.
fatmon 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you explained what obligation animals have towards humans, fatmon.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Its an obligation of humans to help humans. I am sorry but I dont give a darn what you say, any species values their own over another species. We do what we can to help our own survive. I find animal necessary and accurate and I have no problem with it (seeing as I am already in a research lab). There will be a day when we no longer need animals in research but that day is not here yet. But it will come when the science is there and not before.
fatmon 2 years ago
You didn't answer my question. But that's perfectly fine, as I can tell that you are afraid of the answer. No species has any obligation to another. Every species has the right to not be exploited by any other. Disease is brought unto ourselves and it is up to us to quit our disgusting habits. It is not up to a species that has vast biological differences to save our species.
You should understand that quite well. Unfortunately, you are desensitized.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Yeah well I never said that any other species has an obligation to us. I am just saying that we have an obligation to save other humans. Im sorry that we have different views on what is right. I am going to stop talking about that because it is obvious we arn't going to change each others minds about that. However, I just want people to realize the facts about animal testing and how it does work and is an effective model. Also, to clear up the many misconceptions about researchers.
fatmon 2 years ago
We do have an obligation to care for each other. But at the expense of others? Never.
Animal testing is not reliable. Correlation does not equal causation.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
"Animal testing is not reliable"
You are just an ignorant, brainwashed little girl who doesn't know what she is talking about. Tell me how many advanced level biology classes have you taken, how many research labs have you been in. READ A FUCKING TEXT BOOK. Stop believing what you see on the internet and learn it yourself.
fatmon 2 years ago
I have a different opinion than you so I must be a ignorant, brainwashed and a "little girl" which, might I add, is sexist. I've researched something and came to a different conclusion than you so I must be uneducated. That is petty. If this is your way of thinking, I don't want anything to do with you; you obviously can't have a conversation like an adult.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
What ever, that is not a sexist comment, it is just like any other comment. Anyway I am frustrated because people believe lies and feel they can talk about how something is false when they don't understand the topic. I trust the people who have spent their whole lives studying biology. They understand what they are doing and if it didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. But believe whatever the heck you want to believe. Animal research will stay around and be used anyway because it works.
fatmon 2 years ago
It IS sexist. You attempted to belittle me by calling me a little girl and went on to describe me as uneducated.
You put too much trust into people.
As stem cell research has more support, you will see how much we progress once we start relying on human cells, rather than living, breathing animals that have no connection to us. How can you compare human anatomy to any kind of rodent?
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
See that last comment shows you dont understand biology. "How can you compare human anatomy to any kind of rodent?" Please take a genetics course, an animal biology course and you will see the similarities between them. You are just looking at the cover of a book and think you understand what the whole thing is about. I am sorry again if you think that was a sexiest comment, I truly am but I have said the same thing to another man once. I also agree we will make amazing progress with stem cells.
fatmon 2 years ago
Oh brother.
An animal doesn't fucking compare to human cells! Get fucking real. Honestly.
I want you to remember something every time you're about to say that we've used animal testing to find cures. Correlation does not equal causation.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Please show me to where you find your information. Animals cells and genetics are far more similar then you know. So are you telling me that all biology and genetics books are wrong? Tell me the difference between the two right now. Please go ahead.
fatmon 2 years ago
I will also add that yes there are differences, I am not saying they are exactly the same. But those differences are also important for research.
fatmon 2 years ago
I've shown that testing results on different species vary vastly. A rat and a human? WTF.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Animal DNA is different to human DNA. Yes, it has helped us to some extent in the past, i guess.. But Animal anatomy is different to human anatomy. For example, you ever been to a vet? I mean come on, what could potentially kill them, could save us. I learnt it in school, btw.. Maybe you'll say that they teach bullshit but that's where i'm going to get my education.
Bonsbooty 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bonsbooty 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, of course animal anatomy is different to human anatomy, we are still animals like them though. They even have different hearts i'm sure, but that doesn't stop us saying that they have one. So yes, scientists will think it's okay to test on animals because they are similar to us, but when you ask how that is justified, then it is because they are not like us, or because they need to. But as far as i know it's not all that accurate, or maybe i'm wrong.
Bonsbooty 2 years ago
I've noticed that before and it's a really great point. Why do they do it? Because they are like us. Why is it okay? They are not like us.
Nice flip flop there, 'scientists.'
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Thankyou :-)
I can't actually find my comment because of all the replies, LOL, nvm.
Bonsbooty 2 years ago
Yes it is true somethings that harm animals dont harm us and vice-versa. However, researchers are full aware of this and will take it into account when doing the research. So they might use a different animal because the toxicity of things are different from animal to animal just like animal to human. There are however, many lies about certain medications and animal research. Watch my video response to this video to see a few.
fatmon 2 years ago
But how do you think they found out that certain medications don't work on animals in the first place? So many failures and yet it's just not enough evidence to get through to the stubborn people, that just don't want to hear it.
I tried watching your video but it isn't working right now (you know how it pretends not to be 'available'? Urgh). I will try again later so I can accept it as a video response (which should have happened automatically...).
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
That's pretty funny! A vet would never work on a human. A doctor will rarely work on an animal, although is severe cases, they might at least try. But it's funny to think about that.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Thats like saying a cardiac surgeon would never do surgery on the brain and a neurosurgeon would never do surgery on the heart. Yeah they understand about they human body and how all parts of it works. But they do not have specific enough information to perform that job.
fatmon 2 years ago
fatmon, that is one of the best jobs at owning someone i have ever seen. rofl. nice job.
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
Lies, lies and more lies. I have been trying to get answers from people against animal research, please show me where you get your information!
If animal testing is inaccurate why does......
fatmon 2 years ago
the Center for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, American Physiological Society, American Veterinary Medical Association, Society for Neuroscience, Society of Toxicology, and Association of Medical Research Charities ...........
all support animal research and say it is accurate? KnittyGrittyNatch dont think I am targeting you I just want my questions answered. Where are you getting your information for how animal research is incorrect????
fatmon 2 years ago
By listing a few organizations that support animal testing, what do you think you are proving? Are you implying that alternatives are not being supported in medicine? In Europe, animal testing is outlawed. Are you implying that they are less advanced or are hindered of any progress because they do not test on animals?
If I remembered my sources for this video, I would tell you. My information comes from various sources.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
It's cute how, because I have found information that contradicts what you believe, you think I must be lying. And yet, you do nothing to prove that I am incorrect except to say that animal testing is supported by some organizations.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Europe Animal testing for cosmetics was outlawed not for other research. I support this because cosmetics is not something I care about and I do believe we can use the alternatives completely for these tests.
Medical testing alternatives are used wherever possible but they cannot completely replace animal testing yet. Researchers would be happy if they didnt have to use animals for testing since its very expensive, takes a long time and they dont enjoy using animals but it is necessary.
fatmon 2 years ago
Here are a few things to consider...
1) Why, if animals so different to humans as many claim, are there numerous medications for animals that are the same drugs as used in humans.
2) Doctors and Hospitals both work with research labs that use animals and use results from these labs to help their human patients.
3) Animal testing is used in other areas of research other than that of testing medicines. (Not talking about cosmetics)
fatmon 2 years ago
4) There are strict regulations on the use of laboratory animals for research to protect the animals well being.
5) Researchers do not want the animals to be under stress or pain all of the time because this gives bad results and is mean.
6) Animal research has contributed to developing many medications and vaccines that have already saved millions upon millions of lives.
7) There are some differences in animals and researchers take those into account when doing the research.
fatmon 2 years ago
8) Mice have 99% identical genes arranged in almost the same order on their chromosomes as humans.
fatmon 2 years ago
Oh and regarding rats... My fiend was given a rat by her neighbor who couldn't keep it any more. I had no idea how intelligent and sweet they could be. She let her rat run around her place and I was able to call her over to me on the couch. She would crawl up my leg into my lap or arms. It was incredible! The rat also liked to sleep with my friend. I had no idea....
TheVeganHere 2 years ago
Absolutely! My aunt has rats and they're just like little people. I love their little hands (they have pads on their hands and they hold things just like humans). Once you meet a rat, your whole perception of them changes. They are no longer diseased, smelly pests (that outlook is actually really sad).
There is a hooded rat in this video named Princess Sophia. She was my aunt's rat. (:
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
When someone says their family member is alive due to animal testing they are wrong. Animal testing is as accurate as flipping a coin. In recent history there is nothing that is confirmed that was discovered from animal testing. It's misguided science.
Those points aside, even if it were accurate I am vehemently against it. Who is anyone to decide what species is worthy of life?
But the bottom line is animal testing is a multi-billion dollar industry that yields no results.
TheVeganHere 2 years ago
Yes, that is why I have made two videos about it (the other one explains why vivisection is so inaccurate). These will not be the last! (:
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Ahahahaha.
You know what you just did....
You got her admit she pals around with hypocrites. That really is pretty funny. haha.
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
That's fine and dandy if you've met 'hypocritical' vegans but veganism isn't hypocritical. I've already explained the goals of veganism, not the goals of individuals.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
I don't mean to be rude but, honestly, who the fuck are you to say what is vegan or not? If you want to play vegan police, you need to go vegan first. Sorry, hun.
I hate to repeat myself but you're obviously going to make me...That is nothing new.
'In some places, it is tricky (but usually possible) to go vegan but organic produce doesn't even exist. Are they hypocritical for still trying?'
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
As I've already said, it is up to the vegan to decide if it violates an animal's right not to be exploited. It is not hypocritical if it accomplishes the goal of veganism.
Also, what is the option for people where organic is not available? In some places, fruit is actually scarce. Their options for vegetables are celery, carrots and onions. In some places, it is tricky (but usually possible) to go vegan but organic produce doesn't even exist. Are they hypocritical for still trying?
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
[cont'd] It is up to the vegan to decide if this violates an animal's right not to be exploited. I don't think it does. However, do I still think it is harmful? Yes. So do I buy organic? Yes.
Now, I've told it to you straight. I'm sure you'll complain, you won't like my answer, probably say I avoided your questions entirely and say it isn't 'morally right', although it's not you that holds these values, but rather, vegans. But I have given you my answer, which is no, it does not exploit animals.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Cower?! I'm the one that brought it up in the first place.
'I wouldn't say a vegan is hypocritical, even if they eat cooked food such as bread.'
I will tell you my answer very boldy because you will probably forget if I don't and then explain to you again:
NO!
It is very smart for anyone to go organic but going organic isn't necessary for the goals of veganism. [cont'd]
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Arrogant and self-righteous? That is ridiculous. Vegans are no more likely to be arrogant or self-righteous than anyone else. The only ones claiming that vegans are morally superior are non-vegans.
I also mentioned that everyone should buy organic if it's available, vegan or not.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Yes. It is completely indirect to veganism.
However, everyone should buy organic if it is available. Pesticides create run-off and it is important to prevent water pollution.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
I wouldn't say a vegan is hypocritical, even if they eat cooked food such as bread. The goal of veganism can be put several ways (although, often taken out of context): animal liberation, animal rights and, most of all, the end of animal exploitation. You don't necessarily have to go raw to obtain these goals. Omitting meat, eggs, dairy, honey, etc is how we obtain them, among other methods of activism.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
I used to go to a health food store for my produce and I asked questions there as well; so it is possible if your town/city doesn't have a farmers' market.
I go to the farmers' market weekly, sometimes biweekly. It is incredibly easy to ask questions. Also, if you're not used to it, you can actually taste (sometimes even smell) the pesticides.
I started eating/buying this way in January and only meant to go raw for a month. It looks like I will be staying this way-- I love it. (:
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
anti-vegan....? why wud ne1 mind...?
anti-vegan is prolly the crappiest anti-something to be. lolz
NickNyk 2 years ago 3
I couldn't agree more. ;)
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
I do not go to the super market. Are you sure you know what a farmers' market is? You know, people gather in one spot, set up a stand with their fruits and vegetables and you have the opportunity to ask questions?
I should be used to how slow anti-vegan trolls are by now. Hmm.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
I do have a garden, as well as going to the farmers' market. I know where my food comes from; I can ask *questions* unlike you.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Approximate for me: How many animals die for apples? For almonds? For bananas? For pineapples? etc
All of my food is picked. None of it is harvested in the way you imagine. When my food is picked, *nothing* had to die, including the plant (tree).
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Oh god. What are you going on about this time?
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
"not trying to educate myself"
That's the point. ;)
"just trying to 'convert' others."
Nothing about this channel is about converting anyone. It's about dispelling the myths and spreading information and ideas.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Typical Leftwinger. You go on a Pro-Life site saying to Murder babies while saying the trade off of a dog for a human is wrong. Yep, very typical human hater.
BigOldScout 2 years ago
TROLL.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Good Point. Shouting to murder a child but, Oh, don't you dare hurt an animal. Hypocrites.
Airborneready 2 years ago
Hey I guess we should start using the homeless for testing instead they aren't doing anything right
wellaintthatswell 2 years ago
and basically, it's YOU idiots that come on here and spout shit as if vegans are bad in the first place.
I never see this girl insult anyone. Even if she did, it's a result of idiots insulting her.
So slander all ya want. 'cause I accept the real shit as a meat-consumer, even if it makes meat-eating or vivisection seem really damaging. I'm open to inner change.
27362489723683524783 2 years ago
LOL. Heres my favorite part. First you mention the part about killing the insects.
The vegans response "You kill more insects through the farms!"
Then you say its still killing them. She could really go and find her own food, saving millions.
Vegan: You dont see the difference between direct and indirect?
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
Instead of bitching and complaining how "vegan" is inefficient, why not come up with a fucking goddamn solution?
Man, I'm starting to see no more "good" debates from meat-heads VS vegans.
I hate to state this over and over, but I too consume meat.
27362489723683524783 2 years ago
Really? So how many animals died for the mango I just ate? ;)
FYI, I would be a frugivore if it weren't for the spinach. Where does my spinach come from? The farmer's market! I know where my food comes from. Do you?
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
You(paraphrasing): It doesn't matter! Just because you think someone else kills more, your still better? You really must not care for all living things.
Vegan: "i already said theres already scientific debate whether insects are sentient or not"
LOOOOOOOOL ! so she goes from defending her ideas, to backing in a corner and then just saying they really aren't valuable after all. Priceless!
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
I know about the hunting thing. If you just took all your food from plants, and what you kill (ooo such a terrible word) you would be doing sooooo much more than they. And then the wildlife programs paid for BY hunters. its funny how the people being attacked by whining bitches behind a screen are doing more than they ever will! LOLZ!!!
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
Hey! I thought of that too, I just never really did it. You just have to let them be. Sit together in their huddle and tell each other how awesome they are. "Don't worry hun. We're always right. We'll never be as low as those murderes. We prove them all wrong. Now pass the carrot, so I can pretend like I'm making a difference.' LOL!
i
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
And b t w, you completely owned this page! LOL! I think KnittyGrittyinherSnatch mt need to start censoring. Very embarrassing to her, veganbutterfly, and their causes.
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
You know I used to try to debate, and try to reason with these people (e.g. vegans, vegetarians, even Peta) all the time. I closedi my account and just started all over though, because it was so ridiculous. I don't think they have jobs, besides sitting on their lazy asses, so they can claim how much better they are than everyone else. Such arrogant fucks. But, then I realized how big of a minority they are; how no one takes them seriously. Just a little ant hill on a mountain of common sense.
MakeMeMoreEmoThanEmo 2 years ago
Better to have emotions than to be cold-hearted and driven by mere selfish desire.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
Just like you?
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
I'm talking about scientific debate, not cuddlytarian bullshit.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
Probably for the peta-sucks forum.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
*head-desk*
oh my God!
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
I meant "sentience", not "sentient" there.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
I already said there is some debate on the sentient of insects.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
Now you're saying why. You don't realize how ever, that there are other factors.
If society is changing a certain belief, it will show in youth, and it will slowly move up as those youth age, and they will pass it to their kids.
Activism usually targets youth because the older you are the more stuck you are on your way of thinking.
If more seniors are racist than youth it would signal that racism may be decreasing in society.
Your stats may hint that vegans are increasing in numbers.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
No. We are all sentient.
Speciesism makes you draw an invisible line, just like racists draw a line between them and what they call "inferior races".
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
No I understand that, I just don't know why you were USING it. It had nothing to do with anything.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
So caring about non-humans automatically means I don't care about humans?
Would you support killing 100 human children in labs to save the lives of some adults? Why not? You must not see the value in adult life then!!
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
Well you are the first person to not get that concept.
....did you just say omnivores have more diseases??
I think you only made the "drunk" joke because you actually are drunk, lol.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
She just proved your reasoning is incredibly flawed.
Rock on, VeganButterfly. (:
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Thanks.
He is giving me SO much material for my "Stupid Things Omnis Say" list that I intend to share on various sites and vegan forums. I can send you a copy when I'm done it if you want :)
I usually don't have so much coming from just one person.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
My friend has a one year old child. She cannot wield a scapel, run a saw, or conduct an autopsy....I guess she is "inferior" and should be tested on?
I know someone who is caring for a mentally handicapped person, who cannot wield a scapel, run a saw, conduct an autopsy, or even say his own name.....so I guess he is "inferior" and should be tested on?
So you believe in "might makes right" then. Do you know what evils you can do with that belief? Just look what Hitler did.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
You do not see a difference between direct and indirect?
Tell me something.
Cars pollute the environment which harms humans and non-humans. Does this mean that it is justified for drivers to purposely run over humans and non-humans?
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
What's your point here?
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
So why is the average vegan cholesterol level in the healthiest range? The average omni cholesterol level is so high, risk of heart disease is extremely high. But vegan cholesterol is so low that it is almost impossible to get heart disease (unless that vegan smokes).
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
No, most crops are grown to feed to animals raised for food. Going vegan means using less plants because you are eating soy and grain directly as opposed to feeding large amounts to animals to eat their flesh.
If you really care about animals killed for crops, you could help reduce those numbers by going vegan.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
No it's not about equality. No one is equal to anyone. I'm not even equal to you. You aren't equal to your neighbour. We are all different. Unique. And that's something to appreciate, not hate.
Although we are all different, we all deserve EQUAL CONSIDERATION.
For example, even though a child doesn't have the right to vote, her pain and suffering should matter as much as an adults.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
Of course you need cholesterol. But what you don't need is DIETARY cholesterol. Do some damn research. If you have a healthy liver, it produces all the cholesterol you need. Any cholesterol consumed from food is excess.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
So if someone has a higher IQ than you they can use you as a resource?
Do you realize your "might makes right" philosophy could be used to justify human slavery and child abuse?
Cholesterol doesn't clog our arteries??? LMAO!!
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
LOL exactly. Let's see you chase down an animal with your speedy predator legs, pounce on your prey, sink your sharp predator claws and huge fangs into your prey and tear it apart and consume it, flesh, blood, fur, bone, guts, and let's see you remain in good health.
Guess what happens when natural meat-eaters eat lots of cholesterol from meat? NOTHING. They DON'T get clogged arteries, we do.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
I love how you summed it all up in one fell swoop! <3
There's this guy on YT with an anti-vegan video; he's on the Atkins diet and doesn't believe in cholesterol! Haha.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
well, we don't understand many very complex biological mechanisms yet, so animal experiments can be useful and justified
BTW, by donating your cat to these you can save hundreds of lives ...
semiliteratedgod 2 years ago
My cat doesn't have an obligation to humans and 'save hundreds of lives,' nor do any other animals.
Did you read the description? Animal testing is NOT accurate; go watch my other video on vivisection and you will see why.
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
So if someone wanted to learn something about the brains of speciesists, you'd let them experiment on you and cut you up?
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
well, I'm a human being, I have stuff going on ... self awareness, thoughts, feelings, etc
so your analogy is flawed
semiliteratedgod 2 years ago
Yes you have awareness, thoughts and feelings, just like non-human animals do (except sea sponges and possibly insects)
VeganButterfly 2 years ago
this is b/s
semiliteratedgod 2 years ago
Horses have canine teeth. How many times have you seen a horse chase down an animal and eat him/her for dinner?
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
That's only B12. Eat foods with B12 and problem solved. I eat plenty of B12 from soy meat, nutritional yeast, and fortified cereals.
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
There are other ways to get B12 than fortified foods. I don't supplement or eat fortified foods and I've been a raw vegan for a few months now. Harley (durianriders on YouTube) has been a raw vegan for several years now and he's never supplemented. He's in the best shape I've ever seen anyone in!
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
Oh I know, this is just where I get most of it. I eat plenty of raw foods myself, ESPECIALLY now that I'm pregnant and having aversions to most cooked food, and cravings for lots of raw fruit and veggies! Maybe my baby is trying to make me into a raw food vegan too ;)
VeganButterfly 2 years ago 2
Oh my gosh! That's great. I've been reading about vegan pregnancy a lot lately and I'm so glad to see people are beginning to support vegan pregnancies, breast feeding and parenting. I plan to eat mostly raw foods too! If not all. :3
KnittyGrittyNatch 2 years ago
That came out long ago, and its nothing but another sensationalized article. The study says that low B-12 levels can be associated with brain shrinkage, not vegan diets. Yes, you can wind up with a B-12 deficiency on a vegan diet if you don't eat correctly. You can also wind up with a B-12 deficiency eating the standard American diet. DUMBASS.
And I'm 27. But you're right, this conversation is becoming childish. I'll stop now. Go enjoy your steak, I hope you also enjoy your heart disease :)
OneAnnoyedVegan 2 years ago 5
SIGH. If you would actually do research, instead of pulling some random article from t he SUN out of y our ass, you would see what causes the brain shrinkage is low B-12 levels.
Of course that would happen to someone like you, since you're not smart enough to plan your diet and eat healthy, if you go vegan you'd probably live on lemonade and potato chips. But I get enough B12. So I'm out of risk.
OneAnnoyedVegan 2 years ago 4
Ugh that study has been disproved. You idiot. LOL.
OneAnnoyedVegan 2 years ago 3