animal testing i wrong and cruel animals need love and trust not any of this and any one who agrees with animal test should be killed slowly and so shounld thelab people that do the testing stop animal testing stop killing animals for meat and stop being cruel all animals should be allowd to live and i hate humans i pefere to be with animals they are more kind and careing they trust us to look after them not hert them you barstards
Never saw the film but read Keith's book. I still don't like the way PETA is too quiet about vivisection. They always seem to focus too much on morals and ignoring scientific facts. And then you have those Pro-Test dicks starting arguments on ARs and PETA. Well thats old now anyway, enough people know who they really represent: uneducated children, spoilt brats, laymen in general.
This interview, would she still have taken part if it was babies rather than say rats and dogs? I bet she wouldn't.
There seems to be noone ready to present that kind of info so you need to look at both sides and read between the lines. I just think that the info in this video is worth looking at and I want people to see it, they don't have to agree with 100% of the view points presented.
How about Albert Starr who used dogs to develop heart replacement surgery, and Jonas Salk who used monkeys to develop and test the Polio vaccine just to name two. Animal testing gave us most of our understanding of cellular biology and continues to play a key role proteomics, which is arguably the most important biotech field today. Pleased do some research
Bloody hell, I accidentally clicked post in the middle of typing, bloody laptop mouse pad!
Anyway I was adding
and don't be fooled by ignorant propaganda. Now I may agree that some animal testing, particularly government sponsored animal testing, is dubious, you can't judge the entire industry based on one bad branch. Lastly, besides the government sponsored testing, if it wasn't effective no one would pay for it.
Like I said to Sapper the truth is somewhere between what this video states and the mainstream view, this is just a clip from a video I think is worth watching. That doesn't mean I believe 100% in everything stated by those in the film. Lots of doctors and scientists are now turning against animal testing because they believe it is unreliable in different ways, there is information on that all over the internets. They pay for animal testing because it protects them from legal liability etc.
"Until you convince the majority of people to think the same, all you can do is inform and educate"
Which is what we are devoting our time to. Not everyone will agree but slowly opinions are changing, more and more people are becoming aware of what has been happening all these years behind closed doors. Look at what has happened with non animal tested cosmetics, that is now a selling point. And its not as if the non tested moisturiser burns your skin off because it wasn't tested on rabbits.
Gary Francione puts it simply: you would save whoever you were the closest too i.e. you may save your dog over a stranger but would most likely save your child over your dog.
In short it is a silly hypothetical like all the other ones (e.g. if you were on a desert island and the only thing there was a chicken, would you eat it?); you really wouldn't know until you got there.
"a situation where you have to choose between saving the live of an animal and a human where only one life could be saved and the other would obviously die"
^^I guess I'd choose whichever was not obviously going to die! LOL Just messing with you, I saw the door open, so I walked through it! :)
The problem w/ that question, much like the infamous 'desert island' scenario that vegans so often get, is that its a situation that is impossible to predict what a person would do, when terrified & reduced to instinctual, self-preservation-type thinking. I might not save either one of them, for all I know!
"In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio: the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and did not involve animals, and the animal tests, in which a staggering number of animals were killed. Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg noted that for 40 years, experiments on monkeys who had been infected with polio generated limited progress toward a cure. The breakthrough came when scientists learned how to grow the virus from human and monkey cells"
Talking with my grandparents, drug prices are spiraling out of controll. What good is a drug that noone can afford? In the US of A, if you don't have insurance, apparently you don't deserve to live.
Two points with this:
1. We don't have our prioreties straight, so everything (!) shound be should be questioned
2. Drugs costs so much for a reason. Testing combined with holding people's live hostage seem to be the reasons.
"but medical advancement IS largely a result of animal testing"--Haven't we well justified that it is not? Certainly this video suggest this type of testing is not usefull. I can tell you from textbooks I have that doses, if nothing else, is far different between species. (i.e. between a rat and a human after accounting for body mass)
Well you know the WHO states the safe amount of mercury in the human system is 0, so I'm sure the removal of mercury (if they can do it,which I doubt) would b gd. Well do the search if you are interested, I think (can't promise) one of the articles I found was on wrongdiagnosis . com which just has lots of info on different medical issues (focussing on making sure you have the right diagnosis) and various approaches being used to treat each one. Man...i said I was going to bed! Damn computer LOL
I'm not avoiding it. It's just that it's a silly question. It's like asking you which of your two children would you save if you could only save one. It's ridiculous. Of course you'd try to save both (I hope). If it was an animal like a rat, I'd probably go for the human, since rats are very capable of escaping disasters on their own. But if the human was more capable of getting out, I'd go for the non-human animal. It really would depend on who needs my help the most.
I'm not worried about my belief, I'm worried about living breathing animals with eyes and ears and minds and nerves and everything required to suffer intensely. I think we know how each other feel so I guess we can just leave it at that...there isn't much else to say really.
If you don't mind I'm going to remove your video response. If you want to make a new one that is in response to the issues raised in the video or here in the comments it would be welcome tho.
Humans are animals, so I still don't really see what you're trying to ask me. Everyone who lives in my house is a member of my family. If there were two of my family members in a burning house, I'd try to save both of them, just like if a man's wife and son were both in a burning house, I would think he'd try to save them both.
Of course I have to change their minds. Why do you think I do what I do? It's ALL to make people see the cruelty that's going on. You've pretty much just told a fish that it needs to learn how to swim.
I don't argue against medical advancement (please don't make up lies about me). I just argue against the medieval ways it's done.
There are other options being developed that will/are going to allow more advances eg tissue culture, computer models, human based studies on non dangerous methods/substances (like diet etc). I think we will be able to move forward whilst also decreasing animal cruelty, and without resorting to testing on people in the 3rd world (which we already are by the way).
According to the Canadian Council of Animal Care, in 2005, of 2.32 million animals, 50% of animal testing was for curiosity-driven research, 35% was for medical/veterinary research, 4% was for teaching, and 11% was for testing. An estimated 167,000 of those animals were subjected to experiments that caused "severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthized conscious animals."
Both suck but even people in the 3rd world or other unpleasant places don't usually live in a tiny cage and have substances injected into them (or whatever the method is) that make them ill for the duration of their short lives. I'd choose to be human in China or Korea or Africa or wherever over a lab animal any day.
And anyway, I don't think anyone said it was ok for people to be oppressed or mistreated??
It was obvious once I had read it. But before that, it was this idea that I kinda had in my mind that I don't think I could've put into terms that'd make sense to just about anyone, like you did.
No, not including me. I believe non-human animals have just as much right to live their lives freely as we do. The fact that the majority sees them as expendable objects doesn't make it right or just. The same was true for those who owned slaves and saw them as no more than farm equipment.
I'd save them both. I don't have dogs, but I do have cats. They're my adopted children and just as much a part of my family as my boyfriend.
Check it out, Google the words vegan and MS. I found some articles that suggest it has been found to alleviate symptoms (I looked it up ages ago when I found out you had MS but I didn't say anything because I didn't know if it would be worth it or if you would just think I was promoting my cause so to speak). I couldn't find links to the study itself (might have if I digged deeper) but this was on non-vegan purely health related sites, perhaps it was not as well publicised as the diabetes study.
True, but it goes the other way as well. People who are for animal testing have to aknowledge that it isn't all about saving little Timmy who has leukemia (or whatever). There are so many more things going on and perhaps we should start by banning ALL non medical testing first while we work out what the fuck we are going to do.
We should be spending all our resources on working out how to clean up our environment and get poisonous chemicals out of our food. Then maybe little Timmy wouldn't...
(cont) ...have developed leukemia in the first place.
I'm sure you know what I'm saying. I'm totally about what will increase human quality of life and the train we are on right now is not heading in that direction, as far as I am concerned.
Hardly any animal testing finds cures for diseases. It's time for them to get with the times and stop using ancient methods to try to obtain knowledge. I can send you a few links on the alternatives to animal testing. Some medicines might be found through it, but those same medicines could have been found in different ways.
If animal testing is saving the lives of those animals, then that's more of a reason to just start testing on humans.
Well you know I'm definately going to be against animal testing performed by the military industrial complex, it's killing animals in the interest of killing people in the end. American DoD does some fucked up animal testing from what I have heard/seen, including remote controlled rats for reconaissance (imagine having electrodes in your brain that control your movements, perhaps even against your will - a rat is as sentient as your dog :-( )
Exactly! Humans don't see non-humans as deserving of freedom. They are speciesists, and the animals are the slaves suffering unfairly for it. That's why it's wrong.
My mother did have cancer, and they removed it. I already told you that the knowledge itself is not bad, nor is using said knowledge, but the way it's obtained has the potential to be cruel.
"We don't use humans because the vast majority of humans don't see non-human animals as being on-par with humans. If we did, then it would be the less fortunate humans that were tested on. In this case, the animals are the less fortunate, and are the recipients of testing"
You see, we do not think that is right. That is the basis of our argument, neither option is acceptable. Support of animal testing is based much more on self interest in my opinion then ethics.
"Worrying about animal testing seems to ignore a lot of the attrocities against humans."
C'mon Sapper, you know that's bollocks. Vegans are incredibly conscious of human suffering and concerned about that too. The vegan forum I visit has an entire section dedicated to human rights and its a massive topic of conversation. After all, we're against speciesism and holding human suffering as unimportant would be completely hipocritical.
Vegan Freaks Forum. Do you listen to vegan freaks radio? If not YOU SHOULD!!! OMG go there right now, just type vegan freak radio into Google.
Seriously, I didn't know shit (comparatively) about human rights until I became a vegan. That stereotype that we are weirdo human haters is so rediculous O.o
I already answered your question. Besides, I don't have any children. :)
If animal testing is necessary, why aren't humans locked up in cages and pumped full of drugs? Humans ARE animals. In fact, it would give the most accurate of results to just lock a hundred humans up in cages and just test all the life-saving drugs on them, wouldn't it? That would make sense and it would save many lives. That's what you're in support of, right? Saving lives? Why not use humans?
Yeah, I think something between the perspective given in this video and the mainstream opinion is the truth. I have a few points:
1) People always go straight to cures for deadly diseases and get all emotional about saving human lives but the truth is that household cleaners, toothpaste, cosmetics, industrial chemicals, you name it, is tested on animals as well. It is a much larger issue then saving human lives, it is also about MONEY...
(cont) Animal liberators in the UK are still finding researchers doing the LD50 test which is where you dose a group of animals with a toxin until 50% are dead so you can test the toxicity of a chemical. Mars were doing tests where they fed rodents chocolate and then made them swim through opaque water to find a step (and then killed them). People working in rehab for people with head injuries intentionally give primates brain damage so they can practice rehabilitation techniques etc etc etc....
2) Many diseases for which animal tested medicines are developed can be prevented or cured through diet and other lifestyle factors (just as a for instance veganism has been found to alleviate or cure a range of illnesses/conditions type 2 diabetes, MS, obestity, cancer). I think we got ourselves into this situation and it isn't fair to make other sentient beings pay. We also need to get over the idea of living forever, which I think humans are obsessed with (cryogenics anyone?)...
3)In the end I think we are just creating more suffering. If we don't address causes and just deal with problems as they come up then we have a whole lot of chronically ill people who are often on multiple medications and dealing with the side effects of that. In addition we have more and more testing to deal with the increased human disease.
It's just a shitty situation overall for everyone involved :-(
Watch it, its a bit heavy in places (not as full on as other stuff I have seen) but its really positive to see people actually doing something about the situation :-)
animal testing i wrong and cruel animals need love and trust not any of this and any one who agrees with animal test should be killed slowly and so shounld thelab people that do the testing stop animal testing stop killing animals for meat and stop being cruel all animals should be allowd to live and i hate humans i pefere to be with animals they are more kind and careing they trust us to look after them not hert them you barstards
162shell 1 year ago
@162shell I feel the same way :(
Thatsamistery 5 months ago
Never saw the film but read Keith's book. I still don't like the way PETA is too quiet about vivisection. They always seem to focus too much on morals and ignoring scientific facts. And then you have those Pro-Test dicks starting arguments on ARs and PETA. Well thats old now anyway, enough people know who they really represent: uneducated children, spoilt brats, laymen in general.
This interview, would she still have taken part if it was babies rather than say rats and dogs? I bet she wouldn't.
ShroedingerWatcher 2 years ago
So hmmm PETA is not just a big business?
Animals are killed at the hand of the ones claining to save them.
PETA is nothing more than a terroist group them selves and PETA is a shame to animal activist groups.
Try looking into your research and tell these people the truth about how much is accomplisted through Research involving animals
kounno 2 years ago
I think it pretty fucked up that we humans do this to animals is just heartless shit.
animals have feeling like us humans too.
SundanceTree17 3 years ago
stop testing on animals badgers look awful in lipstick
mwnng 3 years ago
This is an excerpt from the "Behind the Mask" documentary right? I have it on DVD :-)
porolita 3 years ago
Yep :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg
SugarAddict 3 years ago
Ha ha ha ha! XD
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Well now your video is attached so both sides are represented :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
There seems to be noone ready to present that kind of info so you need to look at both sides and read between the lines. I just think that the info in this video is worth looking at and I want people to see it, they don't have to agree with 100% of the view points presented.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
To the last statement in the video...
O RLY?
How about Albert Starr who used dogs to develop heart replacement surgery, and Jonas Salk who used monkeys to develop and test the Polio vaccine just to name two. Animal testing gave us most of our understanding of cellular biology and continues to play a key role proteomics, which is arguably the most important biotech field today. Pleased do some research
subach 3 years ago
Bloody hell, I accidentally clicked post in the middle of typing, bloody laptop mouse pad!
Anyway I was adding
and don't be fooled by ignorant propaganda. Now I may agree that some animal testing, particularly government sponsored animal testing, is dubious, you can't judge the entire industry based on one bad branch. Lastly, besides the government sponsored testing, if it wasn't effective no one would pay for it.
subach 3 years ago
Like I said to Sapper the truth is somewhere between what this video states and the mainstream view, this is just a clip from a video I think is worth watching. That doesn't mean I believe 100% in everything stated by those in the film. Lots of doctors and scientists are now turning against animal testing because they believe it is unreliable in different ways, there is information on that all over the internets. They pay for animal testing because it protects them from legal liability etc.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"Until you convince the majority of people to think the same, all you can do is inform and educate"
Which is what we are devoting our time to. Not everyone will agree but slowly opinions are changing, more and more people are becoming aware of what has been happening all these years behind closed doors. Look at what has happened with non animal tested cosmetics, that is now a selling point. And its not as if the non tested moisturiser burns your skin off because it wasn't tested on rabbits.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Gary Francione puts it simply: you would save whoever you were the closest too i.e. you may save your dog over a stranger but would most likely save your child over your dog.
In short it is a silly hypothetical like all the other ones (e.g. if you were on a desert island and the only thing there was a chicken, would you eat it?); you really wouldn't know until you got there.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"a situation where you have to choose between saving the live of an animal and a human where only one life could be saved and the other would obviously die"
^^I guess I'd choose whichever was not obviously going to die! LOL Just messing with you, I saw the door open, so I walked through it! :)
CatCommunication 3 years ago
The problem w/ that question, much like the infamous 'desert island' scenario that vegans so often get, is that its a situation that is impossible to predict what a person would do, when terrified & reduced to instinctual, self-preservation-type thinking. I might not save either one of them, for all I know!
CatCommunication 3 years ago
There was a time when the majority believed in the heliocentric theory too.
CatCommunication 3 years ago
"In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio: the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and did not involve animals, and the animal tests, in which a staggering number of animals were killed. Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg noted that for 40 years, experiments on monkeys who had been infected with polio generated limited progress toward a cure. The breakthrough came when scientists learned how to grow the virus from human and monkey cells"
GULRUDJ 3 years ago
Thanks for that snippet of info to break up the vitreol :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Talking with my grandparents, drug prices are spiraling out of controll. What good is a drug that noone can afford? In the US of A, if you don't have insurance, apparently you don't deserve to live.
Two points with this:
1. We don't have our prioreties straight, so everything (!) shound be should be questioned
2. Drugs costs so much for a reason. Testing combined with holding people's live hostage seem to be the reasons.
GULRUDJ 3 years ago
"1. We don't have our prioreties straight, so everything (!) shound be should be questioned"
Hell yeah.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"but medical advancement IS largely a result of animal testing"--Haven't we well justified that it is not? Certainly this video suggest this type of testing is not usefull. I can tell you from textbooks I have that doses, if nothing else, is far different between species. (i.e. between a rat and a human after accounting for body mass)
GULRUDJ 3 years ago
Well you know the WHO states the safe amount of mercury in the human system is 0, so I'm sure the removal of mercury (if they can do it,which I doubt) would b gd. Well do the search if you are interested, I think (can't promise) one of the articles I found was on wrongdiagnosis . com which just has lots of info on different medical issues (focussing on making sure you have the right diagnosis) and various approaches being used to treat each one. Man...i said I was going to bed! Damn computer LOL
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
You know what they say. Information is power and education is the key to success.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
I'm not avoiding it. It's just that it's a silly question. It's like asking you which of your two children would you save if you could only save one. It's ridiculous. Of course you'd try to save both (I hope). If it was an animal like a rat, I'd probably go for the human, since rats are very capable of escaping disasters on their own. But if the human was more capable of getting out, I'd go for the non-human animal. It really would depend on who needs my help the most.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
I'm not worried about my belief, I'm worried about living breathing animals with eyes and ears and minds and nerves and everything required to suffer intensely. I think we know how each other feel so I guess we can just leave it at that...there isn't much else to say really.
If you don't mind I'm going to remove your video response. If you want to make a new one that is in response to the issues raised in the video or here in the comments it would be welcome tho.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
You can be against what you want. It doesn't make animal testing less cruel, less barbaric or less speciesist.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Humans are animals, so I still don't really see what you're trying to ask me. Everyone who lives in my house is a member of my family. If there were two of my family members in a burning house, I'd try to save both of them, just like if a man's wife and son were both in a burning house, I would think he'd try to save them both.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Of course I have to change their minds. Why do you think I do what I do? It's ALL to make people see the cruelty that's going on. You've pretty much just told a fish that it needs to learn how to swim.
I don't argue against medical advancement (please don't make up lies about me). I just argue against the medieval ways it's done.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
There are other options being developed that will/are going to allow more advances eg tissue culture, computer models, human based studies on non dangerous methods/substances (like diet etc). I think we will be able to move forward whilst also decreasing animal cruelty, and without resorting to testing on people in the 3rd world (which we already are by the way).
I have to go to beddybyes. Cya dude :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
According to the Canadian Council of Animal Care, in 2005, of 2.32 million animals, 50% of animal testing was for curiosity-driven research, 35% was for medical/veterinary research, 4% was for teaching, and 11% was for testing. An estimated 167,000 of those animals were subjected to experiments that caused "severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthized conscious animals."
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Both suck but even people in the 3rd world or other unpleasant places don't usually live in a tiny cage and have substances injected into them (or whatever the method is) that make them ill for the duration of their short lives. I'd choose to be human in China or Korea or Africa or wherever over a lab animal any day.
And anyway, I don't think anyone said it was ok for people to be oppressed or mistreated??
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"I'd choose to be human in China or Korea or Africa or wherever over a lab animal any day."
Jessamine you're my hero. Sometimes you just say some simple little sentence and my brain explodes!
CatCommunication 3 years ago
He he he he thanks! :-)
You're awesome too, it was a happy day when I found out you'd started doing vids too.
"I'd choose to be human in China or Korea or Africa or wherever over a lab animal any day."
Wouldn't you, it just seems so obvious.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
It was obvious once I had read it. But before that, it was this idea that I kinda had in my mind that I don't think I could've put into terms that'd make sense to just about anyone, like you did.
CatCommunication 3 years ago
No, not including me. I believe non-human animals have just as much right to live their lives freely as we do. The fact that the majority sees them as expendable objects doesn't make it right or just. The same was true for those who owned slaves and saw them as no more than farm equipment.
I'd save them both. I don't have dogs, but I do have cats. They're my adopted children and just as much a part of my family as my boyfriend.
I don't get your drift, sorry. :(
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Check it out, Google the words vegan and MS. I found some articles that suggest it has been found to alleviate symptoms (I looked it up ages ago when I found out you had MS but I didn't say anything because I didn't know if it would be worth it or if you would just think I was promoting my cause so to speak). I couldn't find links to the study itself (might have if I digged deeper) but this was on non-vegan purely health related sites, perhaps it was not as well publicised as the diabetes study.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
True, but it goes the other way as well. People who are for animal testing have to aknowledge that it isn't all about saving little Timmy who has leukemia (or whatever). There are so many more things going on and perhaps we should start by banning ALL non medical testing first while we work out what the fuck we are going to do.
We should be spending all our resources on working out how to clean up our environment and get poisonous chemicals out of our food. Then maybe little Timmy wouldn't...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
(cont) ...have developed leukemia in the first place.
I'm sure you know what I'm saying. I'm totally about what will increase human quality of life and the train we are on right now is not heading in that direction, as far as I am concerned.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Hardly any animal testing finds cures for diseases. It's time for them to get with the times and stop using ancient methods to try to obtain knowledge. I can send you a few links on the alternatives to animal testing. Some medicines might be found through it, but those same medicines could have been found in different ways.
If animal testing is saving the lives of those animals, then that's more of a reason to just start testing on humans.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Well you know I'm definately going to be against animal testing performed by the military industrial complex, it's killing animals in the interest of killing people in the end. American DoD does some fucked up animal testing from what I have heard/seen, including remote controlled rats for reconaissance (imagine having electrodes in your brain that control your movements, perhaps even against your will - a rat is as sentient as your dog :-( )
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Exactly! Humans don't see non-humans as deserving of freedom. They are speciesists, and the animals are the slaves suffering unfairly for it. That's why it's wrong.
My mother did have cancer, and they removed it. I already told you that the knowledge itself is not bad, nor is using said knowledge, but the way it's obtained has the potential to be cruel.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
"We don't use humans because the vast majority of humans don't see non-human animals as being on-par with humans. If we did, then it would be the less fortunate humans that were tested on. In this case, the animals are the less fortunate, and are the recipients of testing"
You see, we do not think that is right. That is the basis of our argument, neither option is acceptable. Support of animal testing is based much more on self interest in my opinion then ethics.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"Worrying about animal testing seems to ignore a lot of the attrocities against humans."
C'mon Sapper, you know that's bollocks. Vegans are incredibly conscious of human suffering and concerned about that too. The vegan forum I visit has an entire section dedicated to human rights and its a massive topic of conversation. After all, we're against speciesism and holding human suffering as unimportant would be completely hipocritical.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
What forum is that? Will you send me the link?
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Vegan Freaks Forum. Do you listen to vegan freaks radio? If not YOU SHOULD!!! OMG go there right now, just type vegan freak radio into Google.
Seriously, I didn't know shit (comparatively) about human rights until I became a vegan. That stereotype that we are weirdo human haters is so rediculous O.o
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
I already answered your question. Besides, I don't have any children. :)
If animal testing is necessary, why aren't humans locked up in cages and pumped full of drugs? Humans ARE animals. In fact, it would give the most accurate of results to just lock a hundred humans up in cages and just test all the life-saving drugs on them, wouldn't it? That would make sense and it would save many lives. That's what you're in support of, right? Saving lives? Why not use humans?
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Yeah, I think something between the perspective given in this video and the mainstream opinion is the truth. I have a few points:
1) People always go straight to cures for deadly diseases and get all emotional about saving human lives but the truth is that household cleaners, toothpaste, cosmetics, industrial chemicals, you name it, is tested on animals as well. It is a much larger issue then saving human lives, it is also about MONEY...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
(cont) Animal liberators in the UK are still finding researchers doing the LD50 test which is where you dose a group of animals with a toxin until 50% are dead so you can test the toxicity of a chemical. Mars were doing tests where they fed rodents chocolate and then made them swim through opaque water to find a step (and then killed them). People working in rehab for people with head injuries intentionally give primates brain damage so they can practice rehabilitation techniques etc etc etc....
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
2) Many diseases for which animal tested medicines are developed can be prevented or cured through diet and other lifestyle factors (just as a for instance veganism has been found to alleviate or cure a range of illnesses/conditions type 2 diabetes, MS, obestity, cancer). I think we got ourselves into this situation and it isn't fair to make other sentient beings pay. We also need to get over the idea of living forever, which I think humans are obsessed with (cryogenics anyone?)...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
3)In the end I think we are just creating more suffering. If we don't address causes and just deal with problems as they come up then we have a whole lot of chronically ill people who are often on multiple medications and dealing with the side effects of that. In addition we have more and more testing to deal with the increased human disease.
It's just a shitty situation overall for everyone involved :-(
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
So sad. So depressing.
trick0171 3 years ago
Are you saying that all those lab animals volunteered themselves to be tested on?
Knowledge isn't bad. But the way it's obtained has the potential to be.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Long live the ALF!
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago 2
Maybe we should test on humans to find a cure for feline leukemia. That would be a life-saving cause.
GypsyWytch13 3 years ago
Amazing clip that shows how terrible people have treated pther animals.
All love from Jasmine
Eopyk 3 years ago
I am unsure I am able to watch the link without getting more pissed off. Lab raids, huh?
Sounds like a great idea.
SatchmoBevins 3 years ago
Watch it, its a bit heavy in places (not as full on as other stuff I have seen) but its really positive to see people actually doing something about the situation :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
OMG!
SatchmoBevins 3 years ago