the ad is really really lame. a serious and melancholy topic gets accompanied with giddy music. And there's a affectionate woman who pretends to be prettty yet remain committed to welfare of animals all the time. Wtf?
If their is no animal testing, then what? Turn into Cybermen? Become corpreal beings? (I apologize if I didn't spell that right) I don't get it. If animal testing was abolished, how can we fight the war against disease and medical issues? What do people who are against this stuff want to do AFTER this is gone? I don't think I'll like what I hear, but I just so interested in what people believe would be a better solution. Be serious though.
And I know those two ideas I made are impossible to do
Hey guys, I have a question, hope nobody's offended. I have a paper I have to write, so please do not attack my comment if it angers you, just curious.
What do you think if drug tests are done on criminals instead of animals? Would you support it.
The criminals I mention here are those who have committed serious crimes such as murder.
@NYtassu Good question - I would say that any human who (criminal or not) should be tested on - not animals. The main issue is informed consent. It's truly not ethical in any way without consent. It's similar to what is happening right now with fluoride. They dump industrial waste from phosphate fertilizer / aluminum industry into our water. This is considered a medication for our teeth, although it's never been FDA approved - because it can't be proven safe - but that's another story. ;o(
idiots ... we eat animal becuase thats our nature ... if an animal had the chance to eat u ,...they would ...thats call ..i hate nasty cats,rats,snakes,!!! i can't believe people who has cats at home ..their home smelll like nasty cat ..cat never shower !! their like black people lol
@2222loko cows, chickens, fish and pigs would not eat us if we didn't eat them first. Cows are herbivores, have you seriously ever seen an aggressive cow? they DO NOT attack. AND fish cant eat us, that is impossible. Unless you wwant to live on a diet of bears and sharks? think that would be fair? I also think you should have to hunt them personally, Id like to see you lose. We do not have the right to decide the destiny of another living thing. WE are not better then animals
[mouse models are] woefully inadequate…if you look at the millions and millions and millions of mice that have been cured, and you compare that to the relative success, or lack thereof, that we've achieved in the treatment of metastatic disease clinically, you realize that there just has to be something wrong with those models. Homer Pearce, research fellow at Eli Lilly. Fortune, 9th March.2004
Thank god I'm a buddhist...our people will never harm living beings. FUCK ANIMAL TESTING for our sake. We've done enough harm to the enviroment already. No I'm not saying exterminate the human race, simply saying to respect animals. If for the sake of food, don't let them suffer long, end their life with respect. Animals are miracles of nature, they live for the sake of living...we live for pleasure, greed, and entertainment. To simply live isn't enough for us anymore u_u
@goe5 The majority of people have been desensitized not only to the feelings of animals but to their own kind. Oddly enough, I've done extensive research, which started due to animal cruelty, but I soon uncovered that eating animal products is responsible for so many diseased and ailments of our modern world. I considered this "the animals ultimate revenge, from their graves".
These causes are a well kept secret due to Corporate interests and lobbyists. Follow the money.
@DianeDi Great stuff here but.. I'm a little more concerned with the enslavement of the entire human race & what is to come under the ruling Oligarchy of my time..
"The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair & will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people" -Le Peuple Juif
"Even the best of the goyim (non-jews) should be killed" ~Soferim 15 (the Jewish Talmud)
@mrtruthify I hear you loud and clear. These are the topics that brought me to YouTube 5 years ago. It's been an incredible journey ever since, I might add. I understand the NWO and who is behind it. Also, investigate Kissinger !! Whether it's abuse of animals, our food supply, vaccines, fluoride and of course war and why we are there, I have found that it is all connected.
Good to hear DianeDi.. another one of us awake. If you'd like to see how far from the common perception things have gone.. see my channel.... I promise you.. you will not find another one like it on youtube.
Take special note of what I wrote in the sidebar on my channel. If things seem unlikely or completely far out.. check them out... you'll see the sources are from the Library of Congress. If you want more.. see my playists.. if you want even more, PM me.. I'll give you a briefing.
Why do people always think animal experimentation has to link back to human health in order for it to be worthwhile? Studying animals have given us insight to the diversity of biology, how diseases mutate, how species evolve, and most importantly, what biochemical pathways take place, and what genes contribute to them. All those may not have direct impact to medicine but are important nontheless
And animals like you will suffer under your dilusions of reality...
"To communicate anything to a Gentile about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Gentile knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly" ~Libbre David 37
*
"When the Messiah (Antichrist) comes every Jew will have 2800 Gentile (non-Jew) slaves" Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D
@2222loko have you ever heard of being vegetarian? it's a fact that our stomach acid isnt strong enough to digest / break down meat e.g. chicken, pork, and fish, and we dont need meat and fish, there are other foods that have the same nutritional value as meat and fish, that we are meant to eat and are able to digest. and the fact that you say you love to make animals suffer, well obviously you have no humanitarian side to you, and you really need to look at yourself, and really think.
What expert opinion am I ignoring? I think it is you that is ignoring expert opinion and evidence.
Antiviral microbicide gels have been found to work in animals before humans.
Raltegravir, Maraviroc, Tenofovir, enfuvirtide, nevirapine, etravirine, abacavir, emtricitabine are only a small portion of antiviral drugs developed in animals models that now work and save lives in human beings. There are not unfounded, these are in peoples bloodstreams right now, making them live longer.
I made it a point that I respected your cause, and you. I didn't want to comment on this video anymore, but you lured me back by saying I was "beaten up and can't respond." Now that I did, you assault me (which is by the way hypocritical because you said your for the exchange of information and that you didn't want people to attack each other).
@jphameezy You are cherry picking the data. Valid evidence refers to whole data or a statistically significant sample, eg According to the US FDA 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products"
Secondly you do not show a causal but onle a casual rel between animal tests and what works in humans.
@jphameezy there are over 300,000 drugs on the market, you have listed only 8 here even if thousands were lsited this would still not prove a point though. Whole data does prove a point, see some above
I cannot be "beaten up" and "can't respond" because I believe in my cause at least as strong as you believe in yours, if not more. You post up videos about how you want to save lives from stopping animal research and becoming vegan. I try to save lives by working in the lab all day long trying to develop a cure for HIV and cancer. I'm guessing you understand this already.
Do you think I really care if it is man made or not? I want to develop a therapy so these poor sub-saharan african women and children can live normal lives. Secondly, I don't believe it is "man-made." But, I'll bite. I'll watch the video sometime.
@jphameezy Do remember, if our government (and pharma) would do this to them, what in the heck are they doing to us? MSG, aspartame, fluoride, geoengineering, seed banks (Norway Seed Vault), D.U.M.B.'s (deep underground military bases).
You know, for the life of me - perhaps 5/6 years ago, the world was just bloody perfect. I am so sorry I ever got involved, because the truth really does suck BIG time. I haven't had a decent sleep in years - not your problem thou.
@jphameezy If you want to cure HIV why support animal 'research'?...# Even chimpanzees, our closest living relative, are immune to the human AIDS virus, Hepatitis B and C, malaria and many other serious human pathogens. It is futile to study infections in animals that do not contract them in any similar way.
# Indeed, the US government redirected $10 million of AIDS research funding away from chimpanzee studies after concluding they are a ‘deficient model’.
@jphameezy # 80 AIDS vaccines have failed in human trials following success in primates.
# Again, everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned by studying people, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood cells.
# In the French blood scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people contracted HIV through contaminated blood – given to patients because it was safe in chimps.
@jphameezy Please do not ignore expert opinion and evidence presented which show perfectly clearly that even primates (let alone other species) are counter productive in the pursuit of a cure/ treatment for aids, cancer etc. I am happy to provide more evidence for this if you continue to persist in the unfounded claim
"The recent discovery of highly specific antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications would not have been possible without the use of animal models" Dr Herbert Pardes
"[knockout mice] truly provided a revolution in mammalian biology," Raju Kucherlapati
Now, I was not going to post on this video anymore because I didn't want to create a negative vibe on your video, nor did I want to continue to add information that took away from your cause. But now, I wait to be blocked from your videos.
@jphameezy I am all about sharing information.... people must see both sides. I don't have to agree with you whatsoever, but I truly believe in freedom of speech.
Honestly, you won't be blocked for sharing what you believe. Just don't attack someone personally, be racist or swear.... no other rules here. It's about facts.
If it wasn't for forums like this, I would never have come this far. Bless your heart, I just love passion!
@jphameezy There are 2 problems with quotes made supporting animal exp...1they are usually made by those who benefit from them ie whose titles, careers, income etc are based on them or by people misled by vested interests in animal exp and 2 theya re not supported by the everall and usually even particular evedence, ie the dats is cherry picked.
@jphameezy from Dr Brandon Reines DVM..."While lithium and the monoamine oxidase inhibitors were discovered serendipidously, many other psychotropic drugs, including the tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dibenzodiazepines, and other neuroleptics evolved out of the work on chlorpromazine. The structures of these psychotropics were "deduced" from chlorpromazine's structure. (Fig. 1-3)...cont
@jphameezy "...The phenothiazines, tricyclic antidepressants, and dibenzodiazepines are all tricyclics. Along with the benzodiazepines, they are all congeners of chlorpromazine. In fact, the scientists who synthesized the tricyclic anti-depressants and the benzodiazepines have acknowledged being inspired by chlorpromazine's structure.6
@jphameezy The discoverers of modern psychopharmacology were clinical investigators who noted mood-altering side-effects of drugs used in clinical practice. Drugs administered for therapeutic purposes often induce unforeseen alterations in human physiology and/or cognition. Physicians who note these alterations are in an ideal position to identify and explain clinical anomalies caused by pharmacological intervention....
@jphameezy ...Many of pharmacology's "lead" compounds, including the psychiatric medications, were discovered in the clinical context." Brandon P Reines DVM Psychopharmacologic Discovery: The Relative Contributions of Clinical and Laboratory Studies
Given that many of these investigational anticancer drugs eventually fail, the animal models on which clinical trials are predicated must at best be limited in power, and at worst wildly inaccurate. Dr Alexander Kamb, Global Head of the Oncology Disease Area at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4, 161 - 165.
Look up the article "Three U.S. Agencies Aim to End Animal Testing" - published in the journal SCIENCE (the 3 agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health, and the point of the article is they are finally admitting animal testing is wasteful and irrelevant).
"The Food & Drug Administration recently reported that of all drugs that test safe and effective in animal tests, 92 percent are found to be either unsafe or ineffective in humans." - - - Anti-inflammatory VIOXX caused 320,000 serious heart problems and 140,000 deaths worldwide, yet was not only safe but protective against heart problems in several different animal studies.
The Origin of HIV is controversial, it may have come from another of incidences. Definitely from chimpanzees, thus there must have been human contact. H1N1 may have been originated due to the way we raise them for butchering, I agree, but it may come from other cases too. The point is we don't know. Listeria, definitely from dairy, yes. And, yes they do teach us this in school.
My point is diseases will happen regardless of animal consumption. To cure that, we need animal research.
"If you make a drug that's effective against HIV, sometimes it works against SIV and sometimes it doesn't. So that basically devalues SIV as an animal model for doing experiments involved with developing drugs…The slight problem (with using monkeys as an animal model for AIDS in humans) is the monkeys don't go on to develop AIDS, they don't get sick." Dr Paul Bieniasz of the Rockefeller University in New York. Quoted in Scientists make HIV that can infect monkeys, Reuters, 3/3/09
@jphameezy To cure what? 200 millon animals a year killed in experiments and what cures? 80 HIV vaccines have worked in monkeys one have worked in humans.
"...animal studies, even those conducted in non-human primates, have limited predictive power for immunogenicity in humans." Bugelski and Treacy, Current Opinions in Molecular Therapeutics, 6:10-16.2004
Have you heard of HAART or "The Cocktail"? We have made plenty of discoveries and numerous drugs against HIV infection. Essentially the name itself, cocktail, suggest that there is more than one drug you are taking that is going to help you fight HIV. That should have been obvious.
@jphameezy Yes, but the advances are not related, ie there is no CAUSAL rel. between them and animal experiments...Blood from those infected with HIV remains our most illuminating research material to date. Humans who do not progress from HIV to AIDS offer excellent insight to possible ways of countermanding the disease.NEJM 1994;332:259-260.
"If you want your vaccine to work in a human, you’d better get it into a human, quickly. Otherwise you’re going to spend a lot of time with animal studies and never be able to predict what it will do in people." Prof. Bob Edelman, June 2002. antigenics. com / whitepapers/qs21_adjuvant . html
@SubhumanGrinder Joseph Mengele was a Nazi scientist / aka criminal. Are you that insane to believe he was "the good guy".... goodness - you need help!
@loraynahful It's definitely not right. However it seems that governments demand all drugs and most cosmetic/household products be animal tested before they can gain FDA approval. I believe that after all these years humans know what's good and what's not good for all of us. In reality, we should never had to test again, plus testing on animals does not relate to humans. We have different DNA, and it does not relate at all. It's a scam to say the least and we pay for it.
@jphameezy Really what science? “There is at present no hard evidence to show the value of more extensive and more prolonged laboratory testing as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines that require these tests do so largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds....cont
@jphameezy ( Professor George Teeling-Smith, in A Question of Balance; the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical innovation, p 29, publ. Office of Health Economics, 1980) "... for the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. [We risk] overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used."
Professor Colin Dollery in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed. Cavalla, 1981, p87.
It's not feasible to research on inmates. The number of inmates on death row is not nearly enough run a nation's research agenda, there probably isn't enough for a single university.
@jphameezy Please, we do not need to experiment n humans if we d nt use animals! see curedisease. net or drugtestingconference. com to see what real science is. "Animal experimentation inevitable leads to human experimentation" Dr Moniem A Fadali dlrm. org That is because the animal 'test' does not tell us what will happen to a human therefore we are the real guinea pigs.
I never said to directly experiment on humans. Please, DianeDi suggested that idea. Animal testing gives us the best idea of what is going to happen in humans, we scientists don't feel comfortable coming up with a compound on the bench and directly injecting it into human beings based some conversation we had over a coffee break.
@jphameezy Animal 'testing' does not even give us an idea of what will happen in the most closely realted species let alone humans... Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
As Dr fadali said animal experiments cause human experiments as the animal 'experiment' is not related to humans so we are the guinea pigs
@jphameezy So just because we do something, that means it is ethical?
When you make fun of somebody, when you don't give a coin to homeless, when you throw garbage to the streets, when you don't help an old lady out on the street... This is all ethical because we do it? You sir are an ignorant. Ethics is something you have to study to undestand. And you should know the difference between ethics and bad habbits.
You sir, are putting words in my mouth. I did not say it is ethical because we do it. I said we do it, because it is ethical. You don't think I can argue the ethics of animal testing? Why do you think there is not a single notable scientist that will back up the false assertion that there are better ways than animal research? That should be some food for thought.
What else should my ignorant self know? Care to attack my character some more or can we argue matters at hand?
@jphameezy I didn't say there was another better way to test, I just said it is unethical. Do you think the value of your life is greater than an animal's life? May I remind you that we evoluted from animals? Do I have to tell you that if it wasn't for animals you wouldn't be here?
If an alien colony, way more intelligent than us, discovered our planet, would you think it was ethical to test dangerous products on your mother, father and even yourself? Think about it
Do you think the value of your life is greater than an animal's life? Yes.
May I remind you that we evoluted from animals? I'm a scientist.
Do I have to tell you that if it wasn't for animals you wouldn't be here? No.
I don't think about aliens, that is not going to happen. I'm not going to speculate on it's probability either. Aliens are not in the equation at all. There are humans (yes, we are animals) and there are non-human animals, no aliens.
@jphameezy No, you are certainly not a scientist. More like a wanna-be.
Scientists open their minds to new thoughts and new theories, by being closed-minded you can't be a scientist, because you can't discover anything without being open-minded about almost everything. Even if aliens don't invade earth (duh...) I said to think about it, something you are unable to do. I was trying to put you in "the animal's skin" but nevermind, you just can't can you? It takes mind power to understand things
What new thoughts and theories do you have in mind? I'd love to hear about it, you haven't explained a single one. In fact, I know several scientists at Yale and Harvard that we could conference call and discuss your amazing ideas, you just have to tell me what they are first.
How am I closed minded, where are these criticisms stemming from? Blatant grasp for straws.
Please continue to feebly attack me and not the matter at hand, it makes me feel like a the better person.
@jphameezy You said it was ethical for humans to test i.e COSMETIC PRODUCTS on animals? You still think it's ethical to test something absolutely unnecessary to humans and which we already have available?
When did I ever say anything about cosmetic products?
You must not be a fan of television becuz everyone there wears make up. News anchors wear make up, do you watch the news? Everywhere you go, people are wearing make up. Cosmetic products have become accepted for a long while now. And, people are going to use it whether we test on animals or not. So we, as scientists, have to make sure no human gets hurt in the process.
@jphameezy There is no reason, whatsoever to ever test on animals. It just doesn't relate. There are many "non animal tested" products available. You always have a choice and hopefully you make the smart one. You are "obviously" a fan of television, the biggest brainwashing tool around. It's used quite successfully to tell you what is good for you, all the while lining the pockets of the criminal elite.
How do you think we developed chemotherapy, vaccines, and every medical treatment you can name? You can't name a single medical therapy that hasn't been tested on animals first before humans. And, these therapies help us... "obviously."
Actually, I don't watch TV. I grew up in a family that never watched cable, direct TV, what have you.
You guys are just changing the subject left and right. I thought we were talking about animal testing for scientific research.
@jphameezy Read the blurb I posted under "About Me", you might see that we have created our own diseases and illnesses. If we all stopped eating animals there would be no need for this unnecessary and inconclusive testing. Animal experimentation is a HUGE business. The military is a prime example, paid with by your tax dollars to burn pigs and poison dogs.
Maybe we should test on humans sentenced to life in prison... at least they can tell us what they think or feel.
Scientists are testing animals for the sake of helping people. We have a lot of diseases out there that have nothing to do with meat consumption. Let me name a few: HIV, Malaria, Influenza, H1N1, Listeria, Pertussis, TB, Diphtheria. Theres a number of research indicating that these pathogens may implicate your diseases of interest as well, such as cardiovascular disease, blood pressure, cancer, alzheimers.
I guess that puts us back at square one, animal testing saves lives.
HIV is man made from infected monkeys from which polio vaccines were produced. Watch "The Origins of Aids". H1N1 was apparently made in a lab, yet is natural in wild ducks and other water foul. Shoving animals together in mass numbers breeds and mutates diseases. Listeria & TB are directly related to animals and their by-products (eggs & dairy). Pasteurization is to help prevent TB - did they not teach you that in school? Most animals act as a "host" that is transferred to humans.
Pt 2 - Animal testing does nothing, but kill animals & make Research Centers rich. Cardiovascular disease, blood pressure, cancer, Alzheimers R directly related to eating animal flesh & consuming dairy products. Dairy is responsible for promotion of prostate & breast cancer. I have science studies stating this-see my main page featured video links. High blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks R all the same diseases, blocked veins and arteries from eating animals. Stop living in denial & read.
Regarding your dairy animal flesh and dairy product statement, we can correlate things, but we don't know if it is causal.
Until things are causal, meaning molecular biologists show pathways that prove mechanisms, we cannot have action. Thus, we are left with a lot of relationship/correlational studies, and this isn't enough.
@jphameezy I refuse to argue with someone who has not done the research.
You can't do this overnight, it takes time & I have put a lot of time into this.
That's what brought me to YouTube. I was astounded when I learned that we have all been lied to. Eating animals is the # 1 cause of death in the world, believe it or not and all roads lead back to that. I'm not just making this up, I have no reason to pull this out of my hat. Do your own research, search on YouTube and see for yourself.
First off, I respect you. Your points were clear and you did not degenerate our conversation into meaningless bickering.
Second, what research are you referring to? I have done much of my own research, but found a different answer. I agree with you on the way that we raise animals to feed the masses are wrong, but I don't agree that not eating meat is the answer. I think we can grow animals healthfully and eat them. I think scientific research on animals is the only way.
1) @jphameezy Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your comment. My intent is to avoid bickering and only help share the information I have researched over the years. If I may, please offer some videos to view, rather than books and reading material. It is much easier to convey the information to start with.
Most everyone I know is influenced greatly by the mainstream news and government sites that promote unhealthy choices. Believe it or not - I know I was shocked.
2) @jphameezy I have posted a number of documentary links on my main page. Under my avatar - main page description.
Please try to look past growing animals healthfully just for the time being.
I highly recommend the following;
Eating; A Delicate Balance - The Truth; Food That Kills; Earthlings; Food Inc.,; - preferably in that order. Take your time and I would be more than happy to discuss this subject further. I hope you can take the time to watch.
Again, there aren't enough inmates on death row to provide for scientific research testing. I wouldn't agree with it anyways unless it came after animal testing, as a secondary test to ensure it's efficacy in law-abiding populations. This idea is blasphemy.
@jphameezy Uh nevermind, I just watched you on one of your videos and I now understand why you couldn't possibly ever understand anyone's point-of-view but yours.
@extremekiler Not only is there not a better way there is no worse way...More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time. Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133.1987
@humanmedforhumans 97.5% is at least the average failure rate of any animal tested vs. human clinical trials. It's time we stopped looking at animals for cures when the answer is starring us in the face. Stop eating animals - I believe right there, we will cure most of what ails mankind. The other illnesses are no doubt sanitary conditions.
Wake up world, because your life, as well as the other beings that share this planet, depend upon it.
You have no evidence that is causal. Sure, eating more vegetables may make you healthier, it's a likely probability. But that is correlational, not causal. Epidemiology and molecular biology are different. Both are "science," one relational the other being casual.
We, as scientists, understand fully well that animals are not the same physiological system as human beings.
So, it has been found by scientists that 800 chemicals are teratogens in mice and, of those only 20 are in humans (Circa 1987, kinda going back into time). How is that a failure? This is a discovery. "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work," Thomas Edison.
@jphameezy Ever heard of Sir Alexander Flemming? He said this in regard to the most imortant human medicine..
"How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."
ref Parke D V, "Clinical Pharmacokinetics"
You may want to read the book "1000 doctors and many more against vivisection" to correct your invalid belief.
I would love to give that research book a chance, but unfortunately I'm too busy. The whole point of that article by Ray Greek, MD is that by some some minisicle chance, you can find something physiologically relevant without animal testing. Trust me, it isn't 1928 anymore. We have powerful research tools.
President of the International AIDS Society said: "Today, I can tell my patients with HIV that they can have a normal life expectancy."
@jphameezy It is not ethical because it harms humans and animals due to species difference, there is nothing t weigh up here. google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby' for an eg of how the anima experimenters perpetuate the myth that we benefit from animal exp. also see medicinekillsmillons. com
We now have a way to stop asthma attacks thanks to animal research, which by the way kills about 4210 people a year "New England Journal of Medicine 2010 Lazarus." How do you like that 2010 journal reference, by the way? Studies in guinea pigs and then primates led to the development of leukotriene-receptor antagonists.
@SubhumanGrinder hope you know that they feed cow pig anything that you eat meat from they give them steroids to get fat . and you eat what they eat cause stays in the meat and you can get sick from me meat get all kinds of stuff
@SubhumanGrinder wrong don't agree with you just wrong what you said no animal should go through this , they gotta life to live to, and animals are way different from humans, and testing medicine and all won't do any good does not make no different. they could solve care already all stuff they put in them cause animals are different, Ain't gonna help nothing. we don't have same immune system as them anything like that, so there could been medicine by now for cancer and all. get facts straight
But regardless, I really liked this video. It wasn't over scary but it definitely got the message across. But I do have one question. Does Mars know what exactly their funding? I use to think animal testing was okay to make sure humans were okay, but they aren't humans. But I know some "legit" testing occurs because human testing is illegal. If we do away with that law, then this would stop, right?
@SubhumanGrinder Perhaps you should get into the Reality Zone We are not designed to eat meat. Why do you think it must be cooked - it would make us sick. Our intestines are much longer than meat eaters, our jaws and teeth are no where near the same as meat eaters. Did you know that "Gladiators" were vegans? The strongest man in the world Joe Rollino was a vegan, died at 104 - hit by a minivan. Carl Lewis won 10 gold medals. You really should do some research on this subject before posting.
That's why we're omnivores. Carnivores need the extreme fangs and claws to deal with meat their way because they didn't have spears at one time. And we must cook our food now because after thousands of years certain organs in our bodies are now deactivated so we can't digest raw meat. We would be able to if someone with a spear didn't discovery how tastey meat was after trying a carcass that had gotten chared after a forest fire.
That's why we're omnivores. Carnivores need the extreme fangs and claws to deal with meat their way because they didn't have spears at one time. And we must cook our food now because after thousands of years certain organs in our bodies are now deactivated so we can't digest raw meat. We would be able to if someone with a spear didn't discovery how tastey meat was after trying a carcass that had gotten chared after a forest fire. Gladiators only ate mush because is provided fat for protection.
@SubhumanGrinder Perhaps if you took any time to do a little "independent" research you would understand that eating animals has the most negative effect we can put on human health. Let's forget about testing on animals for the moment, perhaps you should look into eating them instead. Watch "Food That Kills", "Food Inc.", "A Delicate Balance-The Truth", "Mad Cowboy" - links are on my main page description. It's all free, because the truth is free. Please, don't take my word for it.
@SubhumanGrinder Why not "prevent" diseases? The answers are out there - heart disease and cancer isn't a natural way to go, although it's accepted. Stop eating animals, and you will see these drug companies can pretty much close up shop. Hmmm, now maybe that's why it's such a big secret, the prevention, that is.
Animal testing is a very expensive and time consuming process. If there were effective alternatives that could replace it, companies would jump on them immediately. They are already using all of the four techniques you mentioned, and they only move on to animal testing once a product successfully passes through those systems.
Exactly. Imagine your own pets that you would do nearly anything for, no pet owner would offer a member of their family for these experiments. So if a household pet doesn't deserve this kind of treatment, no animal does.
@alexab311 I think it is somewhere in the range of 16,000 to 20,000 daily in the U.S. alone. That's just unwanted pets. I believe experiments on animals and animals raise for food, far exceed the above numbers.
If we all stopped eating animals I believe we can eliminate many diseases. It's a win, win situation. Watch "Food That Kills", "Earthlings", "Mad Cowboy". Links on my main page description.
Everything I have said has come from research I have done on the subject. And I do not believe products should be tested on humans or animals, nor do I believe they should be placed on the market without being aware of the possible consequences. But again, the consequences we see in animals are not a guarantee of the consequences we will see in animals. And I provided a list of 4 alternatives that I think you missed.
@debarb25 None of those systems can accurately recreate all of the different organs in a living being. We still know so little about how bodies work, and we are still discovering new things about them. Computer models still can't create something that looks like a convincing, living person on the outside. Do you really think they can simulate everything that goes on on the inside?
@Nivlek273 How do you know none of those alternatives produce accurate results? And if know such little information about human bodies, than what gives us the basis for comparing them to animals? Especially when experiments have done between animals and humans and they had completely different outcomes.
if products need to be tested what is a way that it can be done ethically 100% of the time? do you agree that the unethical testing on animals is worth keeping people safe?
Alternatives that are being used are "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex, computer modeling, improved statistical design & the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). With all the technological advancements we are making, I don't see any purpose in using a living creature that does not deserve to undergo the suffering for the sole reason of experimentation.
No, not all animal testing is done ethically. Because of these experiments animals face cruelty, as the video clearly shows, and even death. Animals hold the right to live, just as any other living creature, they don't deserve to freely be used as if their only purpose is an attempt at advancement. I don't believe animals or humans should be tested on. John Hopkins Institution is currently woking with 4 alternatives, so why can we not try these when animal testing has proven unreliable?
@debarb25 I agree, no animal or human should be tested upon. In 99.9% of the cases where testing does take place, it's without ones permission. That is just criminal. From all the research I have done, we could eliminate all testing if we stopped the corporations from trying to promote some new age product. Also if we left animal products off our plates, U would see an 80% plus decline in heart disease, cancer, auto-immune diseases & so on. It's a no brainer in my opinion. No need to test ever.
@debarb25 You seem a bit misinformed. Animal testing isn't done to push new products, or make greedy corporations money. It's done to keep you and me safe. Sure, there have been cases where animals have been abused, but these are not typical. Also, think about your statement that you don't believe "animals or humans should be tested on." If we did not test new products, dangerous products would be released. Without testing, your cough medicine could give you cancer.
Nivlek- Sorry to disagree but it is about new products, it is all about profit & greed & believe it or not animal testing is a huge industry on it's own. The approval system (FDA) is criminal & in many cases the approvers at one point or another have worked for the very corporations whos' products are up for approval. It's a revolving door. If they truly wanted to "keep us safe" they would never allow Hydrofluorosilicic acid/ Fluoride in our water. It's toxic waste & has never been FDA approved.
is all animal testing being done ethically? if we can't test on animals should we begin to test on humans first? What are other ways to test these drugs and products without the animals being hurt?
@alexab311 The majority of animal testing is very cruel and is unnecessary, particularly when it comes to the cosmetic industry. If humans don't know what chemicals not to put on our skin by now, well, something is wrong. Also, a well kept secret is the fact that most degenerative diseases, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and a long list of auto-immune diseases are directly related to consumption of animal products. It's somewhat of a viscous circle. Animal testing is a billion $ industry.
I believe the main question regarding this video and animal experimentation is whether or not it is an ethical method of testing numerous human products. I understand the argument that if we did not test animals, the only other option is testing on humans, but after researching the subject, there is no guarantee that the effects scientists see in animals will determine the effects humans will have. So why do we cause so many animals so much suffering, and even death, for unreliable results?
Animal experimentation is a necessary component to the pursuit of knowledge, and to the advancement of our species. It's here to stay, and there's nothing you, or the crackpots in PETA, or any other hare-brained self-righteous fundamentalist group can do about it! Why don't you focus your energy on actual issues, like PEOPLE suffering in the third world? Help THEM better their lives if you must, and leave the damn animals to to the scientists who are trying to progress our existence.
"After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.) curedisease. net
I would kill a million animals with my bare hands if it means saving the life of someone i loved, and anyone who does not agree with this should be experimented on along with these stupid animals.
I don't think it shows enough brutality & animal rights groups don't do enough to stop it. If few scientists get brutally tortured in "tests" they performed on their lab animals, then have their brains blown out. Then maybe they won't have the balls to do it. Nazi's said it was fine to experiment on Jews because they said they're "inferior". Who are we to judge, if we torture animals for "science" just because they're considered "inferior". No one should decide what's inferior it's all life.
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
@jphameezy As humans and primates went our seperate ways 7.5 million years ago I am not sure what point you hope to make. I'll provide more recent quotes to humour you...2007
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
Out of respect for DianeDi and her cause, I will no longer answer questions from her videos. If you would like a response from me, which I will provide kindly, please ask it to me on my channel. Thanks.
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
Puppy mills, fast food companies, people who want money in general without a great effort to obtain it...this is where it comes from. People whop desire without repricussions.
I'm not a religious person but there's a reason things like greed, gluttony, lust are considered sins. And though people like these might be the sinners, those who turn a blind eye will also feel their faults. I can tell you this because WE are the ones who prosper off their 'advancements'.
i almost cried because of this video, this is too brutal and too sad to watch, R.I.P all the animals who suffered because of those assholes with no hearts, and i hope that those who did this to those animals get the same torture and the same feeling, the animals were having. so sad.....
Greed is at the heart of all suffering and some humans have no care for anything but money. Proctor and Gamble are very bad too. Fairy, Bold, Daz, Febreze, Dreft, you name it, its all been tested cruelly on animals.
Because most human teratogens have been discovered by alert physicians or epidemiology studies, not animal studies, animal studies play a minor role in discovering teratogens... Well-performed epidemiology studies are still the best method for determining the human risk and the effects of environmental toxicants. Brent, Pediatrics, 113(4 Suppl):984-95. curedisease. net
And the people who work in such labs go home to their families at the end on the day. Pat their own pet dog on the head and cuddle up to their children who have no idea what daddy does for living. These are people without compassion or conscience.
@petermines Exactly! That is my point-people need to make this connection. I urge you to watch & share 'EARTHLINGS' - the documentary link is on my main page description, under "About Me" Recommended viewing". Our world needs more empathy and compassion and most of all, it needs the masses to awaken from their trance. We truly are all connected and we as a species have no right to dominate other species for food, clothing, fur, pets, or other profit. I'm ashamed to be part of the human race.
Let's switch our lives to theirs and see how we like being experimented on ! eyes taken out , pipes being shuved down our throats ! Yea we wouldn't like it so would animals they would h8 it 2 so thoes bastereds go n suffer like animals do ! I'm sooooo FUCKING PISSED OF NOW AFTER SEEING THAT SH!T !!!!!!!!! :@
Controversial topic, however, many of the technological achievements are possible thanks to all kinds of testing.
elandresito 1 week ago
These pol can go suck dick animal testing is sad;( and we need to get some hearts-3
princessdarebear 4 weeks ago
the ad is really really lame. a serious and melancholy topic gets accompanied with giddy music. And there's a affectionate woman who pretends to be prettty yet remain committed to welfare of animals all the time. Wtf?
runhenry 1 month ago
Who else wants to experiment on these assholes that do this to animals?
To show them how animals feel?
I don't care if I'd do it alone I'm still doin it.
InnerStarrr 3 months ago
Humans of this caliber disgust me. Which is why I vote for them to go through the same experiences.
gobitoABC 3 months ago
with our current technology. Those were just examples.
mcrfan343 4 months ago
If their is no animal testing, then what? Turn into Cybermen? Become corpreal beings? (I apologize if I didn't spell that right) I don't get it. If animal testing was abolished, how can we fight the war against disease and medical issues? What do people who are against this stuff want to do AFTER this is gone? I don't think I'll like what I hear, but I just so interested in what people believe would be a better solution. Be serious though.
And I know those two ideas I made are impossible to do
mcrfan343 4 months ago
Animal Experimentation, I APPROVE!
Lifejustneedsdeath 4 months ago
Hey guys, I have a question, hope nobody's offended. I have a paper I have to write, so please do not attack my comment if it angers you, just curious.
What do you think if drug tests are done on criminals instead of animals? Would you support it.
The criminals I mention here are those who have committed serious crimes such as murder.
NYtassu 9 months ago
@NYtassu Good question - I would say that any human who (criminal or not) should be tested on - not animals. The main issue is informed consent. It's truly not ethical in any way without consent. It's similar to what is happening right now with fluoride. They dump industrial waste from phosphate fertilizer / aluminum industry into our water. This is considered a medication for our teeth, although it's never been FDA approved - because it can't be proven safe - but that's another story. ;o(
DianeDi 9 months ago 2
uhh.. what kind of experiment is related to blinding rabbits?
leo3k 9 months ago
idiots ... we eat animal becuase thats our nature ... if an animal had the chance to eat u ,...they would ...thats call ..i hate nasty cats,rats,snakes,!!! i can't believe people who has cats at home ..their home smelll like nasty cat ..cat never shower !! their like black people lol
2222loko 9 months ago
@2222loko cows, chickens, fish and pigs would not eat us if we didn't eat them first. Cows are herbivores, have you seriously ever seen an aggressive cow? they DO NOT attack. AND fish cant eat us, that is impossible. Unless you wwant to live on a diet of bears and sharks? think that would be fair? I also think you should have to hunt them personally, Id like to see you lose. We do not have the right to decide the destiny of another living thing. WE are not better then animals
kaleyidoscope 4 months ago in playlist Animal Welfare - Mature Audiences Only
@kaleyidoscope
better is too subjective
almostskater3210 3 months ago
@2222loko if you are trying to be stupid. then, you should get an oscar!!!
51munz 3 months ago
Hahaha, look at those stupid animals suffering.
lemonrind 9 months ago
You wouldn't breed humans for experiments so why do it to animals.
I am disgusted of humans we are the biggest predator on the planet
ELITEattacker 10 months ago
[mouse models are] woefully inadequate…if you look at the millions and millions and millions of mice that have been cured, and you compare that to the relative success, or lack thereof, that we've achieved in the treatment of metastatic disease clinically, you realize that there just has to be something wrong with those models. Homer Pearce, research fellow at Eli Lilly. Fortune, 9th March.2004
noratmedicine 10 months ago
Thank god I'm a buddhist...our people will never harm living beings. FUCK ANIMAL TESTING for our sake. We've done enough harm to the enviroment already. No I'm not saying exterminate the human race, simply saying to respect animals. If for the sake of food, don't let them suffer long, end their life with respect. Animals are miracles of nature, they live for the sake of living...we live for pleasure, greed, and entertainment. To simply live isn't enough for us anymore u_u
goe5 11 months ago 3
@goe5 The majority of people have been desensitized not only to the feelings of animals but to their own kind. Oddly enough, I've done extensive research, which started due to animal cruelty, but I soon uncovered that eating animal products is responsible for so many diseased and ailments of our modern world. I considered this "the animals ultimate revenge, from their graves".
These causes are a well kept secret due to Corporate interests and lobbyists. Follow the money.
DianeDi 11 months ago
@DianeDi Great stuff here but.. I'm a little more concerned with the enslavement of the entire human race & what is to come under the ruling Oligarchy of my time..
"The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair & will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people" -Le Peuple Juif
"Even the best of the goyim (non-jews) should be killed" ~Soferim 15 (the Jewish Talmud)
All will suffer unless humans focus....
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@mrtruthify I hear you loud and clear. These are the topics that brought me to YouTube 5 years ago. It's been an incredible journey ever since, I might add. I understand the NWO and who is behind it. Also, investigate Kissinger !! Whether it's abuse of animals, our food supply, vaccines, fluoride and of course war and why we are there, I have found that it is all connected.
DianeDi 11 months ago
@Dian
Good to hear DianeDi.. another one of us awake. If you'd like to see how far from the common perception things have gone.. see my channel.... I promise you.. you will not find another one like it on youtube.
Take special note of what I wrote in the sidebar on my channel. If things seem unlikely or completely far out.. check them out... you'll see the sources are from the Library of Congress. If you want more.. see my playists.. if you want even more, PM me.. I'll give you a briefing.
mrtruthify 11 months ago
Why do people always think animal experimentation has to link back to human health in order for it to be worthwhile? Studying animals have given us insight to the diversity of biology, how diseases mutate, how species evolve, and most importantly, what biochemical pathways take place, and what genes contribute to them. All those may not have direct impact to medicine but are important nontheless
Casshyr 1 year ago
Stupid idiots animal are here to serve us ! We eat chicken , pork fish, what is that? Idiots!! I love making animal suffer
2222loko 1 year ago
@2222loko I suppose if I suggested that YOU personally were here to only serve ME - well that would just be wrong or would it?
DianeDi 1 year ago
@2222loko
And animals like you will suffer under your dilusions of reality...
"To communicate anything to a Gentile about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Gentile knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly" ~Libbre David 37
*
"When the Messiah (Antichrist) comes every Jew will have 2800 Gentile (non-Jew) slaves" Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D
The Jewish Talmud (Zionist Jews book of the law).
mrtruthify 11 months ago
@2222loko have you ever heard of being vegetarian? it's a fact that our stomach acid isnt strong enough to digest / break down meat e.g. chicken, pork, and fish, and we dont need meat and fish, there are other foods that have the same nutritional value as meat and fish, that we are meant to eat and are able to digest. and the fact that you say you love to make animals suffer, well obviously you have no humanitarian side to you, and you really need to look at yourself, and really think.
englandchica 9 months ago
@englandchica
but meat and fish tastes too good
almostskater3210 3 months ago
instead of testing on animals were alot of times its not useful we should test on scumbags like mike vick ,
drifter848 1 year ago 2
@drifter848 You certainly have my vote on that!! ;o)
DianeDi 1 year ago
What expert opinion am I ignoring? I think it is you that is ignoring expert opinion and evidence.
Antiviral microbicide gels have been found to work in animals before humans.
Raltegravir, Maraviroc, Tenofovir, enfuvirtide, nevirapine, etravirine, abacavir, emtricitabine are only a small portion of antiviral drugs developed in animals models that now work and save lives in human beings. There are not unfounded, these are in peoples bloodstreams right now, making them live longer.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Try reading my link - Animal Testing Dangerous to Human Health.
Get your head out of the sand - look outside the box.
You have no clue what you are talking about. I am ashamed to be apart of the human race - because *YOU* are in it.
I wish you were an "animal subject"..............and with that said, noʎ ʞɔnɟ
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
I made it a point that I respected your cause, and you. I didn't want to comment on this video anymore, but you lured me back by saying I was "beaten up and can't respond." Now that I did, you assault me (which is by the way hypocritical because you said your for the exchange of information and that you didn't want people to attack each other).
I'm done here, you can't lure me back this time.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Finally - thank you
DianeDi 1 year ago
@jphameezy You are cherry picking the data. Valid evidence refers to whole data or a statistically significant sample, eg According to the US FDA 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products"
Secondly you do not show a causal but onle a casual rel between animal tests and what works in humans.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy there are over 300,000 drugs on the market, you have listed only 8 here even if thousands were lsited this would still not prove a point though. Whole data does prove a point, see some above
noratmedicine 1 year ago
I cannot be "beaten up" and "can't respond" because I believe in my cause at least as strong as you believe in yours, if not more. You post up videos about how you want to save lives from stopping animal research and becoming vegan. I try to save lives by working in the lab all day long trying to develop a cure for HIV and cancer. I'm guessing you understand this already.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy HIV is man made - as I mentioned before, watch the documentary "Origins of Aids" just Google this it's free online.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
Do you think I really care if it is man made or not? I want to develop a therapy so these poor sub-saharan african women and children can live normal lives. Secondly, I don't believe it is "man-made." But, I'll bite. I'll watch the video sometime.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Do remember, if our government (and pharma) would do this to them, what in the heck are they doing to us? MSG, aspartame, fluoride, geoengineering, seed banks (Norway Seed Vault), D.U.M.B.'s (deep underground military bases).
You know, for the life of me - perhaps 5/6 years ago, the world was just bloody perfect. I am so sorry I ever got involved, because the truth really does suck BIG time. I haven't had a decent sleep in years - not your problem thou.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@jphameezy If you want to cure HIV why support animal 'research'?...# Even chimpanzees, our closest living relative, are immune to the human AIDS virus, Hepatitis B and C, malaria and many other serious human pathogens. It is futile to study infections in animals that do not contract them in any similar way.
# Indeed, the US government redirected $10 million of AIDS research funding away from chimpanzee studies after concluding they are a ‘deficient model’.
...cont
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy # 80 AIDS vaccines have failed in human trials following success in primates.
# Again, everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned by studying people, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood cells.
# In the French blood scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people contracted HIV through contaminated blood – given to patients because it was safe in chimps.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy Please do not ignore expert opinion and evidence presented which show perfectly clearly that even primates (let alone other species) are counter productive in the pursuit of a cure/ treatment for aids, cancer etc. I am happy to provide more evidence for this if you continue to persist in the unfounded claim
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
"The recent discovery of highly specific antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications would not have been possible without the use of animal models" Dr Herbert Pardes
"[knockout mice] truly provided a revolution in mammalian biology," Raju Kucherlapati
Now, I was not going to post on this video anymore because I didn't want to create a negative vibe on your video, nor did I want to continue to add information that took away from your cause. But now, I wait to be blocked from your videos.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy I am all about sharing information.... people must see both sides. I don't have to agree with you whatsoever, but I truly believe in freedom of speech.
Honestly, you won't be blocked for sharing what you believe. Just don't attack someone personally, be racist or swear.... no other rules here. It's about facts.
If it wasn't for forums like this, I would never have come this far. Bless your heart, I just love passion!
DianeDi 1 year ago
@jphameezy There are 2 problems with quotes made supporting animal exp...1they are usually made by those who benefit from them ie whose titles, careers, income etc are based on them or by people misled by vested interests in animal exp and 2 theya re not supported by the everall and usually even particular evedence, ie the dats is cherry picked.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy from Dr Brandon Reines DVM..."While lithium and the monoamine oxidase inhibitors were discovered serendipidously, many other psychotropic drugs, including the tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dibenzodiazepines, and other neuroleptics evolved out of the work on chlorpromazine. The structures of these psychotropics were "deduced" from chlorpromazine's structure. (Fig. 1-3)...cont
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy "...The phenothiazines, tricyclic antidepressants, and dibenzodiazepines are all tricyclics. Along with the benzodiazepines, they are all congeners of chlorpromazine. In fact, the scientists who synthesized the tricyclic anti-depressants and the benzodiazepines have acknowledged being inspired by chlorpromazine's structure.6
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy The discoverers of modern psychopharmacology were clinical investigators who noted mood-altering side-effects of drugs used in clinical practice. Drugs administered for therapeutic purposes often induce unforeseen alterations in human physiology and/or cognition. Physicians who note these alterations are in an ideal position to identify and explain clinical anomalies caused by pharmacological intervention....
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy ...Many of pharmacology's "lead" compounds, including the psychiatric medications, were discovered in the clinical context." Brandon P Reines DVM Psychopharmacologic Discovery: The Relative Contributions of Clinical and Laboratory Studies
noratmedicine 1 year ago
I think I already mentioned " I will keep out of it"
Regards
DianeDi 1 year ago
2005
Given that many of these investigational anticancer drugs eventually fail, the animal models on which clinical trials are predicated must at best be limited in power, and at worst wildly inaccurate. Dr Alexander Kamb, Global Head of the Oncology Disease Area at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 4, 161 - 165.
see curedisease. net
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans Thanks for that site reference curedisease . net
I'm looking forward to watching the documentary. Will definitely share!
DianeDi 1 year ago
Look up the article "Three U.S. Agencies Aim to End Animal Testing" - published in the journal SCIENCE (the 3 agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program and the National Institutes of Health, and the point of the article is they are finally admitting animal testing is wasteful and irrelevant).
OopsSheDead 1 year ago
@OopsSheDead Thanks for exposing this fraud, glad im not on my own in realising that i am not a mouse.
curedisease. net is a useful site
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
"The Food & Drug Administration recently reported that of all drugs that test safe and effective in animal tests, 92 percent are found to be either unsafe or ineffective in humans." - - - Anti-inflammatory VIOXX caused 320,000 serious heart problems and 140,000 deaths worldwide, yet was not only safe but protective against heart problems in several different animal studies.
OopsSheDead 1 year ago
The Origin of HIV is controversial, it may have come from another of incidences. Definitely from chimpanzees, thus there must have been human contact. H1N1 may have been originated due to the way we raise them for butchering, I agree, but it may come from other cases too. The point is we don't know. Listeria, definitely from dairy, yes. And, yes they do teach us this in school.
My point is diseases will happen regardless of animal consumption. To cure that, we need animal research.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy
"If you make a drug that's effective against HIV, sometimes it works against SIV and sometimes it doesn't. So that basically devalues SIV as an animal model for doing experiments involved with developing drugs…The slight problem (with using monkeys as an animal model for AIDS in humans) is the monkeys don't go on to develop AIDS, they don't get sick." Dr Paul Bieniasz of the Rockefeller University in New York. Quoted in Scientists make HIV that can infect monkeys, Reuters, 3/3/09
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jphameezy To cure what? 200 millon animals a year killed in experiments and what cures? 80 HIV vaccines have worked in monkeys one have worked in humans.
"...animal studies, even those conducted in non-human primates, have limited predictive power for immunogenicity in humans." Bugelski and Treacy, Current Opinions in Molecular Therapeutics, 6:10-16.2004
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
Have you heard of HAART or "The Cocktail"? We have made plenty of discoveries and numerous drugs against HIV infection. Essentially the name itself, cocktail, suggest that there is more than one drug you are taking that is going to help you fight HIV. That should have been obvious.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Yes, but the advances are not related, ie there is no CAUSAL rel. between them and animal experiments...Blood from those infected with HIV remains our most illuminating research material to date. Humans who do not progress from HIV to AIDS offer excellent insight to possible ways of countermanding the disease.NEJM 1994;332:259-260.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@jphameezy 2002
"If you want your vaccine to work in a human, you’d better get it into a human, quickly. Otherwise you’re going to spend a lot of time with animal studies and never be able to predict what it will do in people." Prof. Bob Edelman, June 2002. antigenics. com / whitepapers/qs21_adjuvant . html
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder Joseph Mengele was a Nazi scientist / aka criminal. Are you that insane to believe he was "the good guy".... goodness - you need help!
DianeDi 1 year ago
Why do they have to experiment on poor creatures!
thats not right
loraynahful 1 year ago
@loraynahful It's definitely not right. However it seems that governments demand all drugs and most cosmetic/household products be animal tested before they can gain FDA approval. I believe that after all these years humans know what's good and what's not good for all of us. In reality, we should never had to test again, plus testing on animals does not relate to humans. We have different DNA, and it does not relate at all. It's a scam to say the least and we pay for it.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
Actually, most of the science we know is from animals.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Really what science? “There is at present no hard evidence to show the value of more extensive and more prolonged laboratory testing as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines that require these tests do so largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds....cont
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jphameezy ( Professor George Teeling-Smith, in A Question of Balance; the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical innovation, p 29, publ. Office of Health Economics, 1980) "... for the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. [We risk] overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used."
Professor Colin Dollery in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed. Cavalla, 1981, p87.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
Why don't we test on death row prisioners? The life of a human is just as great as an animal's life
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler I have contemplated that very same idea. Death row ---- it makes perfect sense! (as long as it's beyond a responsible doubt).
We are all equal in this world - we all share this planet and we all have just as might right to live and be free with or without a voice.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
It's not feasible to research on inmates. The number of inmates on death row is not nearly enough run a nation's research agenda, there probably isn't enough for a single university.
That idea is out the window.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Please, we do not need to experiment n humans if we d nt use animals! see curedisease. net or drugtestingconference. com to see what real science is. "Animal experimentation inevitable leads to human experimentation" Dr Moniem A Fadali dlrm. org That is because the animal 'test' does not tell us what will happen to a human therefore we are the real guinea pigs.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
I never said to directly experiment on humans. Please, DianeDi suggested that idea. Animal testing gives us the best idea of what is going to happen in humans, we scientists don't feel comfortable coming up with a compound on the bench and directly injecting it into human beings based some conversation we had over a coffee break.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Animal 'testing' does not even give us an idea of what will happen in the most closely realted species let alone humans... Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
As Dr fadali said animal experiments cause human experiments as the animal 'experiment' is not related to humans so we are the guinea pigs
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@extremekiler
Because that is unethical.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy And it is ethical when you do it to animals? wow.
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler
Yes it is, that is why we do it.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy So just because we do something, that means it is ethical?
When you make fun of somebody, when you don't give a coin to homeless, when you throw garbage to the streets, when you don't help an old lady out on the street... This is all ethical because we do it? You sir are an ignorant. Ethics is something you have to study to undestand. And you should know the difference between ethics and bad habbits.
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler
You sir, are putting words in my mouth. I did not say it is ethical because we do it. I said we do it, because it is ethical. You don't think I can argue the ethics of animal testing? Why do you think there is not a single notable scientist that will back up the false assertion that there are better ways than animal research? That should be some food for thought.
What else should my ignorant self know? Care to attack my character some more or can we argue matters at hand?
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy I didn't say there was another better way to test, I just said it is unethical. Do you think the value of your life is greater than an animal's life? May I remind you that we evoluted from animals? Do I have to tell you that if it wasn't for animals you wouldn't be here?
If an alien colony, way more intelligent than us, discovered our planet, would you think it was ethical to test dangerous products on your mother, father and even yourself? Think about it
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler
Do you think the value of your life is greater than an animal's life? Yes.
May I remind you that we evoluted from animals? I'm a scientist.
Do I have to tell you that if it wasn't for animals you wouldn't be here? No.
I don't think about aliens, that is not going to happen. I'm not going to speculate on it's probability either. Aliens are not in the equation at all. There are humans (yes, we are animals) and there are non-human animals, no aliens.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy No, you are certainly not a scientist. More like a wanna-be.
Scientists open their minds to new thoughts and new theories, by being closed-minded you can't be a scientist, because you can't discover anything without being open-minded about almost everything. Even if aliens don't invade earth (duh...) I said to think about it, something you are unable to do. I was trying to put you in "the animal's skin" but nevermind, you just can't can you? It takes mind power to understand things
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler
What new thoughts and theories do you have in mind? I'd love to hear about it, you haven't explained a single one. In fact, I know several scientists at Yale and Harvard that we could conference call and discuss your amazing ideas, you just have to tell me what they are first.
How am I closed minded, where are these criticisms stemming from? Blatant grasp for straws.
Please continue to feebly attack me and not the matter at hand, it makes me feel like a the better person.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy You said it was ethical for humans to test i.e COSMETIC PRODUCTS on animals? You still think it's ethical to test something absolutely unnecessary to humans and which we already have available?
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler
When did I ever say anything about cosmetic products?
You must not be a fan of television becuz everyone there wears make up. News anchors wear make up, do you watch the news? Everywhere you go, people are wearing make up. Cosmetic products have become accepted for a long while now. And, people are going to use it whether we test on animals or not. So we, as scientists, have to make sure no human gets hurt in the process.
Don't blame the scientists, blame the consumer.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy There is no reason, whatsoever to ever test on animals. It just doesn't relate. There are many "non animal tested" products available. You always have a choice and hopefully you make the smart one. You are "obviously" a fan of television, the biggest brainwashing tool around. It's used quite successfully to tell you what is good for you, all the while lining the pockets of the criminal elite.
Wake up!
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
How do you think we developed chemotherapy, vaccines, and every medical treatment you can name? You can't name a single medical therapy that hasn't been tested on animals first before humans. And, these therapies help us... "obviously."
Actually, I don't watch TV. I grew up in a family that never watched cable, direct TV, what have you.
You guys are just changing the subject left and right. I thought we were talking about animal testing for scientific research.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Read the blurb I posted under "About Me", you might see that we have created our own diseases and illnesses. If we all stopped eating animals there would be no need for this unnecessary and inconclusive testing. Animal experimentation is a HUGE business. The military is a prime example, paid with by your tax dollars to burn pigs and poison dogs.
Maybe we should test on humans sentenced to life in prison... at least they can tell us what they think or feel.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
Scientists are testing animals for the sake of helping people. We have a lot of diseases out there that have nothing to do with meat consumption. Let me name a few: HIV, Malaria, Influenza, H1N1, Listeria, Pertussis, TB, Diphtheria. Theres a number of research indicating that these pathogens may implicate your diseases of interest as well, such as cardiovascular disease, blood pressure, cancer, alzheimers.
I guess that puts us back at square one, animal testing saves lives.
jphameezy 1 year ago
HIV is man made from infected monkeys from which polio vaccines were produced. Watch "The Origins of Aids". H1N1 was apparently made in a lab, yet is natural in wild ducks and other water foul. Shoving animals together in mass numbers breeds and mutates diseases. Listeria & TB are directly related to animals and their by-products (eggs & dairy). Pasteurization is to help prevent TB - did they not teach you that in school? Most animals act as a "host" that is transferred to humans.
DianeDi 1 year ago
Pt 2 - Animal testing does nothing, but kill animals & make Research Centers rich. Cardiovascular disease, blood pressure, cancer, Alzheimers R directly related to eating animal flesh & consuming dairy products. Dairy is responsible for promotion of prostate & breast cancer. I have science studies stating this-see my main page featured video links. High blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks R all the same diseases, blocked veins and arteries from eating animals. Stop living in denial & read.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
Regarding your dairy animal flesh and dairy product statement, we can correlate things, but we don't know if it is causal.
Until things are causal, meaning molecular biologists show pathways that prove mechanisms, we cannot have action. Thus, we are left with a lot of relationship/correlational studies, and this isn't enough.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy I refuse to argue with someone who has not done the research.
You can't do this overnight, it takes time & I have put a lot of time into this.
That's what brought me to YouTube. I was astounded when I learned that we have all been lied to. Eating animals is the # 1 cause of death in the world, believe it or not and all roads lead back to that. I'm not just making this up, I have no reason to pull this out of my hat. Do your own research, search on YouTube and see for yourself.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
First off, I respect you. Your points were clear and you did not degenerate our conversation into meaningless bickering.
Second, what research are you referring to? I have done much of my own research, but found a different answer. I agree with you on the way that we raise animals to feed the masses are wrong, but I don't agree that not eating meat is the answer. I think we can grow animals healthfully and eat them. I think scientific research on animals is the only way.
jphameezy 1 year ago
1) @jphameezy Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your comment. My intent is to avoid bickering and only help share the information I have researched over the years. If I may, please offer some videos to view, rather than books and reading material. It is much easier to convey the information to start with.
Most everyone I know is influenced greatly by the mainstream news and government sites that promote unhealthy choices. Believe it or not - I know I was shocked.
DianeDi 1 year ago
2) @jphameezy I have posted a number of documentary links on my main page. Under my avatar - main page description.
Please try to look past growing animals healthfully just for the time being.
I highly recommend the following;
Eating; A Delicate Balance - The Truth; Food That Kills; Earthlings; Food Inc.,; - preferably in that order. Take your time and I would be more than happy to discuss this subject further. I hope you can take the time to watch.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
Again, there aren't enough inmates on death row to provide for scientific research testing. I wouldn't agree with it anyways unless it came after animal testing, as a secondary test to ensure it's efficacy in law-abiding populations. This idea is blasphemy.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Uh nevermind, I just watched you on one of your videos and I now understand why you couldn't possibly ever understand anyone's point-of-view but yours.
extremekiler 1 year ago
@extremekiler Not only is there not a better way there is no worse way...More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time. Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133.1987
That is a 97.5% failure rate!
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans 97.5% is at least the average failure rate of any animal tested vs. human clinical trials. It's time we stopped looking at animals for cures when the answer is starring us in the face. Stop eating animals - I believe right there, we will cure most of what ails mankind. The other illnesses are no doubt sanitary conditions.
Wake up world, because your life, as well as the other beings that share this planet, depend upon it.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
You have no evidence that is causal. Sure, eating more vegetables may make you healthier, it's a likely probability. But that is correlational, not causal. Epidemiology and molecular biology are different. Both are "science," one relational the other being casual.
Do you understand the difference?
jphameezy 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
We, as scientists, understand fully well that animals are not the same physiological system as human beings.
So, it has been found by scientists that 800 chemicals are teratogens in mice and, of those only 20 are in humans (Circa 1987, kinda going back into time). How is that a failure? This is a discovery. "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work," Thomas Edison.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Ever heard of Sir Alexander Flemming? He said this in regard to the most imortant human medicine..
"How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."
ref Parke D V, "Clinical Pharmacokinetics"
You may want to read the book "1000 doctors and many more against vivisection" to correct your invalid belief.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
I would love to give that research book a chance, but unfortunately I'm too busy. The whole point of that article by Ray Greek, MD is that by some some minisicle chance, you can find something physiologically relevant without animal testing. Trust me, it isn't 1928 anymore. We have powerful research tools.
President of the International AIDS Society said: "Today, I can tell my patients with HIV that they can have a normal life expectancy."
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy It is not ethical because it harms humans and animals due to species difference, there is nothing t weigh up here. google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby' for an eg of how the anima experimenters perpetuate the myth that we benefit from animal exp. also see medicinekillsmillons. com
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
We now have a way to stop asthma attacks thanks to animal research, which by the way kills about 4210 people a year "New England Journal of Medicine 2010 Lazarus." How do you like that 2010 journal reference, by the way? Studies in guinea pigs and then primates led to the development of leukotriene-receptor antagonists.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
More quotes, since you seem to like them.
"I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed." Michael Jordan
"Without animal testing, there will be no new drugs for new or hard-to-treat diseases..." The Lancet 2004
"Research using animals has made an important contribution to advances in medicine and surgery..." The Wellcome Trust
jphameezy 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder
hahaha ur funny i like u
kay2bmkm 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder hope you know that they feed cow pig anything that you eat meat from they give them steroids to get fat . and you eat what they eat cause stays in the meat and you can get sick from me meat get all kinds of stuff
headstrong129 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder wrong don't agree with you just wrong what you said no animal should go through this , they gotta life to live to, and animals are way different from humans, and testing medicine and all won't do any good does not make no different. they could solve care already all stuff they put in them cause animals are different, Ain't gonna help nothing. we don't have same immune system as them anything like that, so there could been medicine by now for cancer and all. get facts straight
headstrong129 1 year ago
i think it is very fucked up what people do to animals,
but at the same time, they should do it on humans as well.
that way they get quicker results and more accurate,
and there's equality.
Azeious 1 year ago
ACTIVIST PROPAGANDA ALERT
thenakedguyonyourbed 1 year ago
But regardless, I really liked this video. It wasn't over scary but it definitely got the message across. But I do have one question. Does Mars know what exactly their funding? I use to think animal testing was okay to make sure humans were okay, but they aren't humans. But I know some "legit" testing occurs because human testing is illegal. If we do away with that law, then this would stop, right?
skybluepainter 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder Perhaps you should get into the Reality Zone We are not designed to eat meat. Why do you think it must be cooked - it would make us sick. Our intestines are much longer than meat eaters, our jaws and teeth are no where near the same as meat eaters. Did you know that "Gladiators" were vegans? The strongest man in the world Joe Rollino was a vegan, died at 104 - hit by a minivan. Carl Lewis won 10 gold medals. You really should do some research on this subject before posting.
DianeDi 1 year ago
That's why we're omnivores. Carnivores need the extreme fangs and claws to deal with meat their way because they didn't have spears at one time. And we must cook our food now because after thousands of years certain organs in our bodies are now deactivated so we can't digest raw meat. We would be able to if someone with a spear didn't discovery how tastey meat was after trying a carcass that had gotten chared after a forest fire.
skybluepainter 1 year ago
That's why we're omnivores. Carnivores need the extreme fangs and claws to deal with meat their way because they didn't have spears at one time. And we must cook our food now because after thousands of years certain organs in our bodies are now deactivated so we can't digest raw meat. We would be able to if someone with a spear didn't discovery how tastey meat was after trying a carcass that had gotten chared after a forest fire. Gladiators only ate mush because is provided fat for protection.
skybluepainter 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder Perhaps if you took any time to do a little "independent" research you would understand that eating animals has the most negative effect we can put on human health. Let's forget about testing on animals for the moment, perhaps you should look into eating them instead. Watch "Food That Kills", "Food Inc.", "A Delicate Balance-The Truth", "Mad Cowboy" - links are on my main page description. It's all free, because the truth is free. Please, don't take my word for it.
Peace.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@SubhumanGrinder Why not "prevent" diseases? The answers are out there - heart disease and cancer isn't a natural way to go, although it's accepted. Stop eating animals, and you will see these drug companies can pretty much close up shop. Hmmm, now maybe that's why it's such a big secret, the prevention, that is.
DianeDi 1 year ago
Animal testing is a very expensive and time consuming process. If there were effective alternatives that could replace it, companies would jump on them immediately. They are already using all of the four techniques you mentioned, and they only move on to animal testing once a product successfully passes through those systems.
Nivlek273 1 year ago
Exactly. Imagine your own pets that you would do nearly anything for, no pet owner would offer a member of their family for these experiments. So if a household pet doesn't deserve this kind of treatment, no animal does.
debarb25 1 year ago
this video makes me think about pounds and animal shelters and how many animals are kept in small cages and euthanized(sp?) on a daily basis.
alexab311 1 year ago
@alexab311 I think it is somewhere in the range of 16,000 to 20,000 daily in the U.S. alone. That's just unwanted pets. I believe experiments on animals and animals raise for food, far exceed the above numbers.
If we all stopped eating animals I believe we can eliminate many diseases. It's a win, win situation. Watch "Food That Kills", "Earthlings", "Mad Cowboy". Links on my main page description.
DianeDi 1 year ago
Everything I have said has come from research I have done on the subject. And I do not believe products should be tested on humans or animals, nor do I believe they should be placed on the market without being aware of the possible consequences. But again, the consequences we see in animals are not a guarantee of the consequences we will see in animals. And I provided a list of 4 alternatives that I think you missed.
debarb25 1 year ago
@debarb25 None of those systems can accurately recreate all of the different organs in a living being. We still know so little about how bodies work, and we are still discovering new things about them. Computer models still can't create something that looks like a convincing, living person on the outside. Do you really think they can simulate everything that goes on on the inside?
Nivlek273 1 year ago
@Nivlek273 How do you know none of those alternatives produce accurate results? And if know such little information about human bodies, than what gives us the basis for comparing them to animals? Especially when experiments have done between animals and humans and they had completely different outcomes.
debarb25 1 year ago
if products need to be tested what is a way that it can be done ethically 100% of the time? do you agree that the unethical testing on animals is worth keeping people safe?
alexab311 1 year ago
Alternatives that are being used are "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex, computer modeling, improved statistical design & the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). With all the technological advancements we are making, I don't see any purpose in using a living creature that does not deserve to undergo the suffering for the sole reason of experimentation.
debarb25 1 year ago
What are other options for testing products without animals getting hurt?
alexab311 1 year ago
No, not all animal testing is done ethically. Because of these experiments animals face cruelty, as the video clearly shows, and even death. Animals hold the right to live, just as any other living creature, they don't deserve to freely be used as if their only purpose is an attempt at advancement. I don't believe animals or humans should be tested on. John Hopkins Institution is currently woking with 4 alternatives, so why can we not try these when animal testing has proven unreliable?
debarb25 1 year ago
@debarb25 I agree, no animal or human should be tested upon. In 99.9% of the cases where testing does take place, it's without ones permission. That is just criminal. From all the research I have done, we could eliminate all testing if we stopped the corporations from trying to promote some new age product. Also if we left animal products off our plates, U would see an 80% plus decline in heart disease, cancer, auto-immune diseases & so on. It's a no brainer in my opinion. No need to test ever.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@debarb25 You seem a bit misinformed. Animal testing isn't done to push new products, or make greedy corporations money. It's done to keep you and me safe. Sure, there have been cases where animals have been abused, but these are not typical. Also, think about your statement that you don't believe "animals or humans should be tested on." If we did not test new products, dangerous products would be released. Without testing, your cough medicine could give you cancer.
Nivlek273 1 year ago
Nivlek- Sorry to disagree but it is about new products, it is all about profit & greed & believe it or not animal testing is a huge industry on it's own. The approval system (FDA) is criminal & in many cases the approvers at one point or another have worked for the very corporations whos' products are up for approval. It's a revolving door. If they truly wanted to "keep us safe" they would never allow Hydrofluorosilicic acid/ Fluoride in our water. It's toxic waste & has never been FDA approved.
DianeDi 1 year ago
is all animal testing being done ethically? if we can't test on animals should we begin to test on humans first? What are other ways to test these drugs and products without the animals being hurt?
alexab311 1 year ago
@alexab311 The majority of animal testing is very cruel and is unnecessary, particularly when it comes to the cosmetic industry. If humans don't know what chemicals not to put on our skin by now, well, something is wrong. Also, a well kept secret is the fact that most degenerative diseases, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and a long list of auto-immune diseases are directly related to consumption of animal products. It's somewhat of a viscous circle. Animal testing is a billion $ industry.
DianeDi 1 year ago
I believe the main question regarding this video and animal experimentation is whether or not it is an ethical method of testing numerous human products. I understand the argument that if we did not test animals, the only other option is testing on humans, but after researching the subject, there is no guarantee that the effects scientists see in animals will determine the effects humans will have. So why do we cause so many animals so much suffering, and even death, for unreliable results?
debarb25 1 year ago
Animal experimentation is a necessary component to the pursuit of knowledge, and to the advancement of our species. It's here to stay, and there's nothing you, or the crackpots in PETA, or any other hare-brained self-righteous fundamentalist group can do about it! Why don't you focus your energy on actual issues, like PEOPLE suffering in the third world? Help THEM better their lives if you must, and leave the damn animals to to the scientists who are trying to progress our existence.
CupofPhenol 1 year ago
Hi Diane,
Is Mars still doing animal testing to this day?
Em.
limy92 1 year ago
A+++++++++++++++
adriennerothenberg 1 year ago
hes not a scientist but he plays one on T.V.
brandonent50 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.) curedisease. net
noratmedicine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Esto nom puede ser, deberiamos de hacer algo pero ya¡¡¡¡¡¡
escangel000 1 year ago
Esto no esposible, deberiamos de hacer algo pero ya¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
escangel000 1 year ago
I would kill a million animals with my bare hands if it means saving the life of someone i loved, and anyone who does not agree with this should be experimented on along with these stupid animals.
featherlitedirt 1 year ago
@featherlitedirt I disagree.
muskerter666 1 year ago
this is just mean..
Rachelbaby98 1 year ago
I don't think it shows enough brutality & animal rights groups don't do enough to stop it. If few scientists get brutally tortured in "tests" they performed on their lab animals, then have their brains blown out. Then maybe they won't have the balls to do it. Nazi's said it was fine to experiment on Jews because they said they're "inferior". Who are we to judge, if we torture animals for "science" just because they're considered "inferior". No one should decide what's inferior it's all life.
Kornball426 1 year ago
1987
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
1987? Seriously?
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy As humans and primates went our seperate ways 7.5 million years ago I am not sure what point you hope to make. I'll provide more recent quotes to humour you...2007
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
@humanmedforhumans
Out of respect for DianeDi and her cause, I will no longer answer questions from her videos. If you would like a response from me, which I will provide kindly, please ask it to me on my channel. Thanks.
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy Out of respect for DianeDi? Since when did you have any respect?
I think you have been beaten up and can't respond. If you can, by all means, please answer this well informed individual @humanmedforhumans.
I will keep out of it.
DianeDi 1 year ago
@DianeDi
I always had respect. Notice in the earlier comment to you I said "First off, I respect you" And then you said thanks, did we forget that already?
jphameezy 1 year ago
@jphameezy 2006
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
see top for more
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
holy s***!!! i think i'm gonna have nightmares. does anyone else think this is kinda like what they did to kaibutsu in ginga densetsu weed? T_T
PeeweeLamby 1 year ago
Damn Crazy Scientists you scary!
DreadFareTheHedgehog 1 year ago
Puppy mills, fast food companies, people who want money in general without a great effort to obtain it...this is where it comes from. People whop desire without repricussions.
I'm not a religious person but there's a reason things like greed, gluttony, lust are considered sins. And though people like these might be the sinners, those who turn a blind eye will also feel their faults. I can tell you this because WE are the ones who prosper off their 'advancements'.
TheVeR01 1 year ago
0:48 i feel sorry for the cat with that thing on it head it looked so sad....=(
TheCoco47 1 year ago
@TheCoco47 I know and it's not even necassary!
PeeweeLamby 1 year ago
testing on animals is just....not right....its horrible
TheCoco47 1 year ago
i almost cried because of this video, this is too brutal and too sad to watch, R.I.P all the animals who suffered because of those assholes with no hearts, and i hope that those who did this to those animals get the same torture and the same feeling, the animals were having. so sad.....
jegerbest89 1 year ago
IM GONNA LOTS OF MARS CANDY TODAY, CAUSE ANIMALS SUCK!
jesusluvsme12345 1 year ago
@jesusluvsme12345 C*nt.
rofflingcopters 1 year ago
Greed is at the heart of all suffering and some humans have no care for anything but money. Proctor and Gamble are very bad too. Fairy, Bold, Daz, Febreze, Dreft, you name it, its all been tested cruelly on animals.
SylviesBoudoir 1 year ago
2004
Because most human teratogens have been discovered by alert physicians or epidemiology studies, not animal studies, animal studies play a minor role in discovering teratogens... Well-performed epidemiology studies are still the best method for determining the human risk and the effects of environmental toxicants. Brent, Pediatrics, 113(4 Suppl):984-95. curedisease. net
noratmedicine 1 year ago
And the people who work in such labs go home to their families at the end on the day. Pat their own pet dog on the head and cuddle up to their children who have no idea what daddy does for living. These are people without compassion or conscience.
petermines 1 year ago
@petermines Exactly! That is my point-people need to make this connection. I urge you to watch & share 'EARTHLINGS' - the documentary link is on my main page description, under "About Me" Recommended viewing". Our world needs more empathy and compassion and most of all, it needs the masses to awaken from their trance. We truly are all connected and we as a species have no right to dominate other species for food, clothing, fur, pets, or other profit. I'm ashamed to be part of the human race.
DianeDi 1 year ago
Let's switch our lives to theirs and see how we like being experimented on ! eyes taken out , pipes being shuved down our throats ! Yea we wouldn't like it so would animals they would h8 it 2 so thoes bastereds go n suffer like animals do ! I'm sooooo FUCKING PISSED OF NOW AFTER SEEING THAT SH!T !!!!!!!!! :@
TheFly490 1 year ago