Added: 5 years ago
From: DoggyTV
Views: 8,485
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (190)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • okay petas pretty lame come on guys alf is the way to go

  • this is the funniest thing i have seen hahaha. For that dumbass stripper saying we aren't similar to primates shes a fucking idiot. Our DNA to the chimp is 98% similar. Dont believe these fools if have any sort of sense you can tell that they are highly uneducated.

  • "Stop torturing animals"? so then STOP EATING fish, meat, etc. be a vegetarian!

  • @sekenp09

    And what about the many, many, many animals that die in the cultivation, harvesting and transportation of crops?

    Or don't they count?

  • @NiceGuyCody so do you want to do all of the agricultural things by your bare hands only?

    animals in farm doing or plantation are devided to some class. for example germs, living-modals(like sheep or cows). in germs class we "torture" it to controll its population. if we don't control the population, our main crops will damaged.

    acctually i'm an agricultural practism. if you want to continue discuss obut this issue, i can share some

  • I would eat a baconator in front of them

  • @BerriesMcGOO i would eat your moms dead face in front of you.

  • @SaraaRocks no you wouldn't

  • @BerriesMcGOO actually yes i would

  • @SaraaRocks so you think I would stand there and take it?

  • @BerriesMcGOO yes i think you would because you're a retarded retard

  • @SaraaRocks are you on drugs? you might want to get some help

  • @BerriesMcGOO ok nigger!

  • @SaraaRocks alright douchebag

  • @BerriesMcGOO alrighty retardo!

  • @SaraaRocks you know that you are a terrible troll right?

  • Traditional medicine will NEVER find cures for any disease. Testing toxic chemicals on animals is designed to fail. Every synthetic drug approved by FDA has side effects, some lethal. There is a cure already for every disease found in the rainforest and garden using plants as medicine. Big Pharma cannot patent plants; there is no money to be made.

    Vivisection violates the Hypocratic oath -- First, do no harm. It harms animals AND humans. It is a hoax and a crime against humanity.

  • @blakmira -- Hippocratic Oath, that is. The second part of which states: "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." How many doctors ask patients what they are eating? They are not even taught nutrition or the immune system in order to acquire their license. Scientists work off of government grants and are not interested in causes of illness, only pages of useless data.

  • @blakmira

    "Traditional medicine will NEVER find cures for any disease. Testing toxic chemicals on animals is designed to fail. "

    Except, y'know, for the hundreds upon hundreds of cures that scientific medicine has provided, specifically through animal testing. But then, your BS nonpoint would be moot even if we had cured nothing but Polio.

    Still, it's reassuring to know if you ever contract a serious illness, you'll do nothing but apply crystals and mantras.

  • @NiceGuyCody Name one cure. I dare you. Name just one cure that hasn't used humans as guinea pigs after torturing thousands of animals. Name one CURE that's come from chemicals and poisons. You can't.

    Polio hasn't been cured; it's mutated into even worse diseases. Ever heard of muscular dystrophy?

    WTF does crystals and mantra have to do with anything. There's a cure for everything in the rainforest & the garden. Plant-based medicine needs no vivisection; it's already known.

  • @blakmira "Traditional medicine will NEVER find cures for any disease."...have you study about chinese medical herb that cures many disease for 2500(approx) years?

  • @sekenp09 Traditional medicine doesn't use herbs. Why? Not because they don't work, but because plants can't be patented. If you can't patent something, it can't make billions of dollars in profit for Big Pharma.

    In fact, plants work so miraculously that the drugs are copied from them & turned into synthetic versions. The problem is that they've just turned a cure into a poison.

  • no animal testing. and should be never done use humans. lets see how many can sue

  • if u have a PET, or like animals, or even have an OUNCE of compassion on ur bones, u will stick up for those who CANNOT

  • @ComeTogether365

    obviously I have not a single ounce of compassion in my bones.

    Also I don't think that compassion is tangible... or located in the bones.

  • How about we stop using animals and just use these ignorant protesters instead? I'd like to use them for research "without painkillers". (which is a flat out lie by the way). I feel sorry for these ignorant assholes.

  • "Our DNA is not like theirs." Human DNA is 97% similar to the average monkey. Besides, what does it have to do with anatomy? Sea squirts are definitively not similar to humans but they have striated muscles, just like humans! That is why we use sea squirts to study diseases such muscular dystrophy. I know this because I wrote a paper about it. People, you are intelligent and you should read more on science on bioethics. Only then should you make an opinion for yourself.

  • @260191894

    But it is true that over 90% of clinical trials on new drugs tested on animals fail. Surely such a clever person would know that.

  • 1. Please cite your source of information.

    2. What type of clinical trial?

    3. Research is about success through failure. Otherwise, it is not science.

    4.How many years do you think it takes to develop one drug?

  • People, before you "thumb me down" or send me hate mail, answer these 4 questions...then we'll talk.

  • "Without pain killer." People, please stop listening to PETA and find your own answers by reading and looking around you. I work in the medical field. Animal research is strictly controlled and supervised by federal authorities and on-side independent veterinarian staff. Anesthesia is performed on every animal before each experiment/surgery. PETA, have you found a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's disease yet?

  • How many of them still go to a hospital when they are sick? Where do they think the treatments and medication come from? They are inconsistent with their philosophy. Hence, they should not have the right to protest in the first place. God forbids, but assume a loved one has cancer. Would they protest against the life-saving treatments? What about themselves?

  • Animal research has saved millions of lives, including mine. That's why I listen to the scientists engaged in life saving research, not porn-stars and animal rights crazies.

  • i would rather die than participate in animal testing =[ and you might say " oh well you can't say that till your in the situation" but i know i would rather die because animals are exactly the same as us. They feel, they love, they are smart, they fear, and most of all they care if they live or die, they want to live just like you did when you let animal testing save your life.

    animal testing saves millions of lives but it also KILLS MILLIONS. eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind

  • here is a better test of your misguided faith - imagine your baby would die unless you killed an animal. Would you sacrifice your own child for the life of an animal? This is not a complicated moral issue - human life is worth more to us humans than an animal life, except in the case of madmen such as Hitler and Pol Pot, who were both vegetarians.

  • #1 i wasn't trying to be rude, just stating my opinion, if i came of rude i truly am sorry =]

    But on the baby thing if i was in the wild killing a wild animal that lived its life to the fullest and killed in on equal grounding. Yes, because it is natural. If its by unnatural ways like animal experiments no because i see animals as equals =/ it may sound cruel but it is what would happen in the wild and please don't compare me to hitler he was an evil EVIL man what he did to people=unforgivable

  • Vivisection is responsible for KILLING millions of lives actually, not saving them. That's just another lie promulgated by the vivisectors to try to convince people such as yourself that what they do is "life saving research", firstly most of their "experiments" are done for cosmetics, toxicology, etc and not even medical. Secondly, vivisectors have even falsified their own data to get their fraudulent, dangerous "products" onto the market.

  • Thirdly, vivisectors claim that we would not have such well known and useful drugs like paracetomol, insulin, etc, without animal testing but this again is not true because they actually FAILED in animal testing.

    Ask a vivisector why he tests on animals, he'll say because they are like us.

    Ask a vivisector why he thinks it's morally okay to test on animals, he'll say because they are not like us.

    Vivisection is responsible for the torture and murder of animals and humans, it's not true science.

  • Let the scientists decide what is true science through the use of the scientific method. Leave your crazed animal rights thoughts out of it.

  • your comment is laughable. My life has been saved thanks to animal research, and there are millions and millions of other humans who would be dead without the hard work of research scientists.

  • They dont have to use animals you idiot. What was wrong with you? Cancer? Animal research has nearly made NO difference on the evolution of cancer treatment. If people let Scienctists use stem cell research and harm NOTHING rather then letting this big corps use animals to make huge profits then you probably wouldnt have even got the fucking desease. Your a blind idiot. And to your comment before about a human life or animal. NO thats no the choice the choice is between good science and bad.

  • Thank goodness the researchers used animals while trying to discover a treatment for diabetes. If not for their life saving work, I, and millions of others, would be dead. Perhaps if the animal rights wackos stopped planting bombs, the scientists would be in a better position to help the people with cancer that you are talking about, who (of course) have already been helped a good deal. Open your eyes to the facts, and the lives.

  • You freak!

    Human tissue is much more reliable than animal testing!

    If everyone lets scientists use their bodies after death then they wouldn't need to test and abuse animals.

    I feel sorry for people as selfish as you with such a selfish morality.

    People like you dont deserve to be alive.

  • so we have uncovered your true morality - you value animal life more than human life. You wish death upon me because I, like the vast majority of the American public, favors scientific testing on animal subjects. I'm an organ donor by the way - I say, lets give the scientists all the tools they need to find cures and help people.

  • So your above me because you agree with slowly destroying animal lives just for your benefit? And no i value both animal and human life 100% equally and i dont see any reason to think differently. Vivisection is bad science, the results are faulty and inaccurate and the only reason they are doing it still is because they make a shit load doing it. You are mankind at its worst. Thinking the animals are there for our use that we can use them just for our benefit their lives dont matter.

  • Humans have always used animals for our own gain - to pull our carts, or to plow our fields, to eat, to wear, or to keep us company. Using animals in medical research has helped millions and millions of people. That is why scientists have determined (through the scientific method) that sometimes using animal test subjects is the best way to save human lives. It comes down to the facts of science versus the misguided faith of animal rights wackos.

  • No it HASNT saved millions of lives. Ask any vet or doctor. No you CANT find amazing cures from testing on animals, we may as well test on spiders, itll make no difference the DNA is too different their cells are different many 'cures' that worked on animals kill humans, . Yes we have used animals but if you think its fine to torture a living being, take it away from its parents too young and make it go mad, do brain surgery without any anesthetic etc then your sick and need to grow up.

  • I know many doctors, scientist and vets. All the ones I know are very much in favor of scientific research on animal test subjects. You know that spiders are far more different than humans than rats are. I do not think it is a happy thing to subject animals to invasive and often painful experiments, but it is worth it because the knowledge gained will help to save many lives, both human and animal. Fortunately, the scientific community and the American public agrees with me.

  • You OBVIOUSLY dont know any good Doctors or vets. And fortunately for me, all of North Eastern Europe is against it aswell. Oh thats a surprise thats the most well educated unreligious eco-friendly segment of the world! Oh and it has all the best Universities in the world and oh nearly none of them test on animals?! How strange i guess only stupid people test on animals?

    Your disgusting, most of the fucking medicines that come out of it are lethal! You know NOTHING about vivisection!

  • my friend, it is you who is living in blissful ignorance. The facts are simple: Hard working scientists all over the world (with the exception of some portions of North Eastern Europe) work hard every day with animal test subjects to save the lives of human beings and animals. The results of their hard work? Countless millions of lives saved. I am just one.

  • You are an idiot. The science does NOT work. E.G. there was a medicine that stopped pigs being sick when pregnant and it was being developed for humans. It was given to millions of mums and it deformed all of their babies. And would you let your family be tortured and abused just so some big profit making companys could attempt to find a medicine for animals? Let me guess... You say no. You value loved ones and humans above animals just because they are different. Its pretty much racism.

  • You have no facts to support you, so you choose to personally insult me. That's fine. But the facts remain clear - animal testing has saved millions and millions of human lives, including mine. And no, thinking that animals need to be treated as inferiors in human society is not the same as racism. You are morally clueless.

  • Ok 1 have my science dep behind me saying it doesnt work as well as stem cell research and human tissue testing. 2. Yes it is, you are an idiot your morals are wafer thin as they only stretch to your culture. Morally i believe that all living beings should be treated the same and for you to say any different means you are anthropocentric which is disgusting. You have no facts behind you except failed science you are extremely selfish and all i can say is that i feel terribly sorry for you.

  • your "science dep" is clearly crap if they aren't in favor of animal testing - all serious research institutions firmly support of the rights of scientists to experiment on animals, in a quest for knowledge and cures. And thanks so much for that fact. If people like you were in charge, millions of people would be dead, including me. I have the facts, I have the morality. You my friend, are a profoundly ignorant moral idiot.

  • I'm not gay, but I love your argument. I believe we should test on habitual murderers and rapists. most of them have HIV and lack the ability to be moral agents, so why not? Whats more humane - Testing them to help them and everyone outside of bars, or to let them die in vain of a killer disease being pent up their whole lives? If they have 25 years in prison, make them be test subjects for ten. A reduced sentence, and they may not want to commit crime again.

  • @jeffmagic32

    Of course it is racist, they are of another race and you see them as inferior. This attitude will be behind us some day just like the slave trade.

  • They are animals. They are inferior to humans.

  • Please send me a message to explain just why animals are inferior.

  • Imaging this scenario, where you are faced with a terrible choice. You can save just one life - the life of a human baby, or the life of an infant earthworm. Which one you gonna pick?

  • Comment removed

  • @jeffmagic32 Ah but you are getting superiority mixed up with the heredatory instinct towards infants. What do you think the mother of the earthworm would choose?

  • @BrightOnimicon Oh and please refrain from using words like nutjob, it is offensive and does not make you look good.

  • Ok, a middle aged human or a middle aged earthworm. One can only save one from certain death...WHICH WILL YOU PICK???

    _

    This same group shown in the video has planted several bombs throughout the LA area, one of which blew up just a few feet from a researcher's daughter's bedroom, so I will call a nutjob a nutjob.

  • @jeffmagic32 I would not choose. It is not my place. Now stop avoiding my question with hyperthetical situations.

  • you haven't asked any questions. In cosmic scheme, nothing is worth more than anything else. A rock is not worth more than the whole universe. But we humans have to make up rules to survive. One of those rules is we must value our own lives more than other miscellaneous matter.

  • @jeffmagic32 I asked the qustion why are humans superior.

    These may be instinctive feelings you have but it does not make our actions resonable or even remotely justified. Humans passed the stake of simply surviving a long time ago now we just consume, consume and then kill. We are the planets cancer.

  • how is a human more valuable than a carrot or a rock? In the absolute sense, everything is equal. Hitler is Buddha. But in the world we have to live in, we must prioritize human life.

  • @jeffmagic32 It is not that we must it is that it benefits us and give us comforts. And Im not sure whene we started classing carrots and rocks as sentient. It was once beneficial to western people to use black people as slaves. Animals are just an extention of that ignorance.

  • in your system, you cannot decide which to save, a human or a worm.

  • @jeffmagic32 No in my "system" there would not be a right or wrong choice.

  • that's crazy.

  • @jeffmagic32 Why?

  • both of our systems are arbitrary. In mine, people can live in a reasonable way. If I step on an ant by accident, I will not get 25 to life. In your sytem, either I go to prison for a very long time for killing an ant or a rat, or its ok for me to kill you. It's not workable.

  • @jeffmagic32 of course it wouldn't be taken to those extremes but it wouldn't be ok to rip apart (to put it bluntly) a living mammal to try and extend human life.

  • oh, so human lives are more valuable after all?

  • @BrightOnimicon Why on earth would medical doctors "rip apart" animals to extend human life? Use your brain. Non-human primates are used for research so we don't have to use humans. Think about a study involving development. You're saying you'd rather use human children for research than non-human primates? Testing new medication for things like ADHD would have to be conducted on kids, possibly even your own. Our DNA is close enough to primates to make the research completely justifiable.

  • @linnds17, use people who are in jail. The people who are on death row. The people that are going to be put to death anyway.

  • any comparisons to human slavery or genocide are highly, highly offensive to any normal person. You should avoid it.

    So what gives "sentient" matter more value than a rock?

  • @jeffmagic32 In what way could my remark offend anyone? Calling people like me "wackjobs" is much more offensive.

  • wackjobs like you are setting bombs off all over the city

  • @jeffmagic32 Take a FIUCKING step back, just stck to the argument your holding. And no not all people who care about animals are extremists.

  • @jeffmagic32 My final argument is that if the money that is put into animal research was put into third world it doesn't take a scientist to work out that more lives would be saved.

  • Well, I'm sure glad a few hundred dollars were spent to study the pancreas in both dogs and fish.  During the study a few dogs and fish were killed. This resulting discovery of insulin saved my life and the lives of millions and millions of other people. Now that is money well spent!

  • @jeffmagic32 -- Insulin "saved your life"? It's medical fraud designed to turn diabetes into a chronic disease! Diabetes can be cured in 30 days with a raw, living plant-based diet! There's a video and book out about it. Watch free on Internet -- Raw for Life: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days. I know about this & I'm not even diabetic! Why don't you?

  • @blakmira

    you are an ignorant fool

  • @jeffmagic32 Ignorant? I've studied plant-based medicine for 20 years. A fool? I have an IQ in the top 2.1 percentile of the population. I have faith in God and the plants He gave to heal us as food and medicine. You hate God's miracle creations, His loving animals and doubt in His ability to heal. You have blind trust in greedy, sadistic, atheistic scientists instead. Unfortunately, you make up the majority of the population, which is why Scientific Fraud/Crime against humanity continues.

  • @blakmira

    maybe if you were ever diabetic you would realize that you can't just simply cure it by eating some magical bullshit. If you could cure a disease like that, then no one would have it.

    Don't you think that if cancer had a simple cure that everyone would find out about it and cure themselves immediately?

  • @zodiark111 People want magic pills & are too lazy to change eating habits. They won't give up their meat & fried processed fast food. They're drug addicts. You know nothing about Big Pharma Drug cartel & the hold they have on media & all traditional medicine. I will never be diabetic because I've eschewed all meat, dairy, sugar & junk food in general for over 20 yrs. I only shop at health food stores & eat tons of salad greens & fresh fruit.

    Look up Gabriel Cousens - Tree of Life - Arizona

  • @BrightOnimicon How would they be saved without medical knowledge? How would you fight malaria, yellow fever, HIV, infections...?

  • you would not choose, so both would die. Nice choice.

  • @jeffmagic32 You are making silly, petty arguments now show a bit of matureity and make a decent case.

  • @jeffmagic32, maybe we should do this to you. See how you like it <3.

  • @RotisserieiJamie

    animal research saved my life, and the lives of millions and millions of other humans AND animals. Pro-Test. Pro-Science.

  • @jeffmagic32 Humans are simply using equall creatures for personal gain. And putting it under the name of science does not justify it. Their is no indication that humans are more valuable. So if you don't believe that we are superior through the "grace" of god what do you believe?

  • @jacobscamell if the medicines were lethal,they wouldn't be medicines...good gosh. You don't know anything.

  • @sarge958 He was in an understandable state of rage. The more appropriate word is dangerous. The medicines are dangerous, not lethal. If they were lethal, they would be called poisons. But his point is sound and succinct for the most part.

  • @vgman94

    The vaccine for Polio was created explicitly because of testing on primates. The vaccine eradicated Polio for good and saved many lives.

  • Need to grow up? Animal testing has found cures for humans and animals. So you dont want to help animals now?

  • No. we need to test on habitual murderers and rapists. We've been able to cure cancer in rats and mice for years now. I see no reason to use anything else, except the lowest of the low of human beings. Let human beings who do wrong against their own species do the most to help them, not necessarily with their lives, but with their time and their sicknesses they already have, like HIV.

  • .... Wow...Just... um okay do you know how much veterinary science benefits from animal research. Pace Makers in humans are also now used in dogs with heart conditions? It even benefits conservation efforts? No you probably dont your attempts to "SAVE" animals is actually killing them. But i forgot animal rights is all about!

  • @MajesticWolfRunner But also kills an animal every three seconds just in europe. The second most profitable companies in the world are pharmaceutical ones (1st most being chuches).

  • @jacobscamell

    Ask any doctor? In the UK a study of GPs discovered that a whopping 96% of doctors thought "animal experiments have made an important contribution to many advances in medicine"

    Penicillin alone saved millions of lives and was developed in mice (after 10 years of not being used at all after fleming's original discovery).

  • @jacobscamell someone's in denial.

  • @jacobscamell

    If you think that the absence of "morality" is caused by immaturity and it curable by "growing up" then obviously you need to grow up, or rethink everything.

    Animals do not have feelings.

  • that's why you are a nutjob . You know nothing about science and you are morally retarded. I thank these scientists for saving my life.

  • Uhhhh... NO THEY ARE NOT! They are just torturing animals for profit!!!!!!!!!!

  • I am living proof of the great work that these scientist do. Thank goodness these brave scientists continue their fights against animal rights wackjobs.

  • Why not test on habitual rapists and murderers? Most of them have HIV, and apparently lack the ability to be moral agents, so why not? What would you rather have be alive? A beagle, or a rapist?

  • The life of a rapist is worth more than the life of a chimp, a dog, and a cat put together.

  • @jeffmagic32

    In what way can you value the life of anything over anything else? Oh I understand you a Christian.

  • No, you are confused again. I am not a Christian. But I am also not an animal rights nutjob.

  • I agree with you. These activists are hypocrite and bias: they are against animal research but will seek medical treatment when needed.

  • @260191894 -- Well, you wouldn't be able to call me a "hypocrite" -- I boycott ALL pharmaceuticals. They're all made from toxic chemicals (including rat poison, DDT). I only use Ayurveda medicines (roots, herbs, etc.) that have been used for centuries. I'm a vegan & don't seek medical treatment from doctors. So there goes that argument...

  • you are so very morally confused.

    ANIMAL RESEARCH HAS SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVE.

    Including mine.

  • I don't think you understand that human testing happens every day. And sometimes, it's done under the table which is how my friend was handled. Luckily for him, he seems to have done alright, unlike many others. NDAs are usually required in a lot of these tests, so the public really knows little about human clinical trials.

  • regardless of what the 3 pornstars say

  • This fact may tell you something about the benefits of animal research -

    71 of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research.

  • It's worth noting that it's a myth that meat-consumption is rare in India. It was rarer generations ago. In fact, India is the #1 or #2 leather exporter (can't recall if China overtook them) from the animals slaugthered for food.

    I'm not sure where your 71 figure came from, but since animal use is so engrained, it doesn't really address the question where we'd be if we instead used human models.

    I don't see why using violent offenders is a problem. Better science & justice in one step.

  • have you been to India? I didnt think so.

  • Actually, yes, i have. And they generally treat animals terribly there. There are some districts where that's not the case of course. There are fast food chains there, and the only difference is that some of them serve lamb instead of cattle/beef.

  • you clearly have contempt for all humankind.

  • I met a group of these morons at my mom house - when I told them I would be dead without animal research because of my juvenile onset diabetes, they told me I wouldn't have it if I was on a vegan diet. They are amazingly ignorant people. Mostly washed up former hippies and idiot college students.

  • nope your the ignorant person to have that attitude there are alternative methods to have the same advances in scientifice research with out the use of animals for testing, animal testing has never been scientifically validasted nore does it hold relevance to you or you juvenile onset diabetes, it is uneccesary!! and a vegan diet wouldnt necessaily prevent diabetes but testing on animals helps it neither wich way

  • you are an idiot. I am proof that animal testing works.  You pathetic moron. Open your eyes.

  • They're wrong to hand you such absolute claims without more info on your personal status, but it is true that consumption of animal proteins, especially from dairy, has been linked to diabetes. Giving children non-human milk, so far as we know, is a diabetes risk factor.

  • huh? What and how much a person eats has nothing to do with juvenile onset diabetes. The fact the these animal rights wackos didn't know that just shows how ignorant they are, and how unqualified they are to appreciate the tremendous benefits that come from animal research - Millions and millions of lives saved.

  • I would suggest you look at the evidence connecting animal proteins, especially from dairy sources, with diabetes.

    I don't think anyone can say definitively that animal models saved more lives. We simply haven't invested much in other means, like using violent offenders in prison.

    The red herring effect from animal models is also a major problem- we have no way of knowing where the state of the art would be if we used only human instead of animal models.

  • "I don't think anyone can say definitively that animal models saved more lives. We simply haven't invested much in other means, like using violent offenders in prison."

    First, its not a contest. Animals, computer models, etc are all be used. Each method has its pluses and minuses. The scientist can decide which methoid is best. Second - violent human offenders? You are crazy! Your comment shows just how morally confused the animal right movement has become.

  • Also, you are totally clueless when it comes to Type 1 diabetes. Perhaps you should let the scientist decide what kind of research will best accomplish their goals, since you are clearly ignorant.

  • Again, i suggest that you look into research regarding the varying underlying causative agents thought to play a role in causing Type 1. My house is in too much of a mess just now to have to dig up something on it now. Luckily, you'll probably find something about it the internet.

  • in fact, all the evidence tells us that a vegetarian or vegan diet increases one's chances of getting type 2 diabetes, the only kind that can be prevented. But really, even if your fringe milk theory is true, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

  • Now you're just making things up. Over the past quarter century, i've run across multiple studies that indicate animal products, especially dairy are a risk factor in diabetes. Never have i found one that suggests veg diets are anything other than helpful.

    As for the discussion at hand, you challenged the claim and were shown evidence which you now must digest. It does show which of us is more reliant on science, and who has been making things up.

  • do you know what country has the highest rates of diabetes per person? India.  Most people there don't eat any meat, so they end up eating more carbohydrates. So, they get more type 2 diabetes.

  • Cite some studies to back up your India/carb claims.

  • I'm working on that citation.

  • How odd that you suggest that you represent the scientific view any better than I do. Regardless, i will direct you to one of several studies that have found pretty much the same thing: diet of mother and child are risk factors in diabetes:

    From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 6, 1525-1529, June 2000:

    Nutritional factors and worldwide incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes

    Authors: Sandro Muntoni, Pierluigi Cocco, Gabriella Aru, Francesco Cucca, Sergio Muntoni

  • Like I said, even if I concede the point. The facts are simple - Animal research has saved million of lives. Including mine.

  • I don't know that we can ever truly credit animal models with saving lives (even if we did accept an "ends justifies the means" mentality) if only because we have no other parallel system to compare it to. It's a claim made in a vacuum. We simply don't know how far along we'd be if the church didn't bar human research which pushed science into animal model reliance. We'll never know for sure.

    There are many human lives lost due to animal research. Keep that in mind as drugs are recalled on al

  • It seems to all come down to this - it seems you can't tell the difference between human and animal life. Science cannot experiment on people in all cases - sometimes its too dangerous. So, we use animals. We deem human life more valuable than other animals. None human animals are of less value to us - we eat them, we wear them, we exploit their labor, and we use them for medical research.

  • You're correct that most humans deem non-human animals as somehow inferior, and as such meant for use and exploitation.

    Keep in mind that this is the same rationale that keeps women and non-whites in less-than-ideal siuations. Sexism and racism are no different than speciesism. The latter just being far more popular and less-often questioned.

    It's ironic that many disease are a caused by consuming aninal products, and we vivisect them to try to cure the illness.

  • what's next - plants? Some people think plants can feel things. Should we all starve?

    Believe me, there are wackos out there with their citations who think we should not harm plants.

  • No, plants lack nervous systems, ganglia and brains. Far different from the animal kingdom. Trust me, they have no citations showing that plants feel or know anything. Other than nuts on Coast To Coast AM who promote "The Secret Life of Plants" book. :-)

    As for the starvation question, not at all, i encourage people to eat as much plant food as they can. Plants don't suffer

    You can think that animal research saved your life, but without a parallel system to test, we'll never know for sure.

  • this is your first reasonable post. You keep telling people to eat plants, thats great. I suppose that, instead of doing the experiments on fish and dogs, the scientists who discovered the way insulin works could have done those same test on humans. If they had the discovery may have come earlier. But our greater human society places a special value on human life and suffering. Thus, only Nazis actually force people to be experimented on.

  • The Nazis experimented on both humans and animals (even trying to create surgical chimeras). Their human research advanced medical progress more than anything before or since, with the exception of the human genome project and it's long-promised potential cures. Certainly the Nazis were horrible. I'm suggesting that using violent offenders like murderers, brutal child rapists and the like- especially lifers and those on death row. Let them pay back society by giving us more applicable data.

  • what you are suggestion is morally disgusting

  • I see your position exactly the same. Abusing and killing innocent animals and getting precious little usable data seems obscene to me when we are warehousing all kinds of gang members, drug dealers, drunk drivers, etc. Those who have serial convictions should be allowed to repay their debt to society through research. And the data would be infinitely more useful and applicable to humans. And maybe we'd even use anaesthetics.

  • by the way - I hate milk. I always have.

  • animal rights protesters are the biggest idiots on the earth! they will never win. i like animals but they need to be tested on for the good of man kind. these idiots will never understand this

  • save the nice little monkeys

  • vivisectors are psychopaths!

  • "When out DNA is not like theres" HA HA HA HA Cracks me up every time.

  • But, these people are just looking for a way to make a "fuss" about something. These "barbi twins" are about as ignorant as the doll they represent. Medical research proves that even thought there is a 1% difference in the DNA of primates and humans, they can still accurately predict what will happen to humans. And, if you want to stop testing on animals, why not start testing on humans. I'm all for medical testing on the violent criminals overflowing in our prisons.

  • Ok, let me just get this out, because i have been angry all day. I hate PETA, i hate animal rights activists who think they have the right to disrupt others lives based on false assumptions, and i hate animal protesters. The medical labs make absolutely sure the animal goes through no pain, there is no suffering, and most of the animals used have never even seen the outside world before. If their treatment were inhumane, then i would be against it, because animals are no less that humans.

  • "The medical labs make absolutely sure the animal goes through no pain, there is no suffering" umm do you wanna rethink that comment because everyone thinks you are dumb ass. try searching stop animal testing and check out the the vid with the guy wearing a white mask. you surely cannot be this thick.

  • I do not like the torture of animals just as much as you. I do think they could find other ways to test other than animal testing, but, sometimes, it is necessary. Look at the animal kingdom. Do you think an animal that has just been caught and is being eaten alive by a predator is suffering. Of course they are. Are these people protesting predators. No.  Sometimes things like this are just necessary. I do believe there is a degree of human negligence, but most of that has been stopped.

  • I wasn't disagreeing with you. Its your sentence "The medical labs make absolutely sure the animal goes through no pain, there is no suffering" after saying somthing so stupid I really can't take you seriously. I don't really give a shit what happens to them, as long as I don't go blind after getting shampoo in my eyes who cares. I do realise they suffer which is something you need to acknowledge...

  • I realize that my comment may have been hasty and under though. There is some suffering, maybe, but now, with new protocols, there are many restrictions as to what can be done that ensure that there is little to no pain or suffering from the animal. Now, as i said, there may be some because of human negligence. And you can't police that. But, I still stand by my statement about PETA and all the other environmental terrorists out there. They are no better than the people hurting the animals.

  • mate, just shut up. you are blatently a cock. just because people can be arsed to get up off their fat arses and voice their opinion you get the hump. stop hiding behind the internet and get a bill board if you care that much. start a fucking revolution for all i care. you know cock all about this subject so why not just wind your neck in. no offence intended but jesus....