The Final Solution: Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids and forced to participate. While this is ocurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured.. They will be told from the start that as soon as their last remaining loved one is dead that they will go through the process themselves. This should be done to everyone and their family members who profit from this. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
i can't see any relevance for testing on animals considering they react differently to various chemicals etc. Whats the alternative cloned human skin??? i think thats wrong too, can't they do a something where people can volunteer and be paid.
peta would say different if it was their loved ones dying of cancer. oh wait, they will just be hypocrites and use the product, then deny its usefulness.
if they arae making this for us then why dont they just try it on people, animals are not like humans. i cant belive they are still getting away with this
I have a solution= lets do all this testing with criminals who have done very bad things for example multimurder or rape so they are atleast some use for the mankind.
Or if just selfish women would stop using make-up.
[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
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.
tell that to the fucking woman who wouldnt be alive today thanks to animal testing patty wolf she had strep throat it went into her kidneys it destroyed them she was having to go on dialysis so the doctor put a cowneck atery in her left arm so it filtered her blood and cleaned it and when back into her it kept her alive for 2 kidney transplants she soon got anemia and drugs developed through animal research saved her life now dont fucking tell me your peta bs
@cb19882000 firstly the cowneck is an animal aprt not an experiment and human parts would be more effective anyway. dialysis is not the result of animal experiments and re drug developement...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"
@cb19882000...But tissue differences between humans and rats proved that animal experiments were once again misleading. The encouraging results had raised hopes that a major advance in clinical immunosuppression for transplantation was in the offing, but these hopes have now faded and nothing of the great mass of work has been translated into clinical practice."
(John Fabre of Oxford's Nuffield Department of Surgery, Transplantation, Vol. 34, 1982, pages 223-234.)
@cb19882000 kidney transplants..."Results from animal experiments in the 1960s suggested that there might be important advances in transplantation and there-by prompted a large amount of further research into heart and kidney transplants in rats...
@noratmedicine Way to quote a 30 year old paper... Go to pub med. Type in animal model. Get back 100,000 + results. Please explain how animal testing has not advanced medical knowledge. And yes, 92% of drugs fail in clinical trials. But does everyone in the clinical trial die? No. That's because the drugs were tested on animals first. If you hate medical progress so much, never visit a doctor, take medications or undergo surgery. If you do, you are the benefactor of animal research.
@mrcynic77 As humans and mice went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is hard to imagine how 30 years could be significant. The fact that there are 100,000 plus animals models and not even a single cure for a human disease year after year tells a lot. As no animal is predictive for humans they cannot advance medical knowledge, if you have a particular eg you believe in please present that. people in clinical trials dont die as testing is stopped
@mrcynic77 100,000plus animal models also indicates how many people careers and income rely on it, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand the truth when his salary depends on him not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)
"Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless."
- Dr James D. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14 1964.
@mrcynic77 "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty of suffering animals against the gain of humanity spared from suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not to mankind."---The 1963 Report of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Expert Committee on Drug Toxicity
@mrcynic77 "Animal studies can neither prove or guarantee the safety of any drug. They are not a substitute for testing in humans".--J Jennings, Vice President Science & Technology of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
@mrcynic77 Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans…In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability."
@noratmedicine well dr gundersheimer is a retard, how can you explain the over hundred diseases and treatments, drugs and procedures animal testing has brought us?
@mrcynic77 Report of the Medical Research Council "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species."
The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers."
@mrcynic77 Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."
@mrcynic77 100,000plus animal models...and not one of them is predictive for a human. Here is a 2006 paper published in the JAMA..."Comment. Only about a third of highly cited animal research
translated at the level of human randomized trials. This
rate of translation is lower than the recently estimated 44%
@mrcynic77 ...He has only learnt wrongly through animals. I have been able to see this over my many decades as a surgeon, also as a Director of Hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal."
(Prof. Sr Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, Surgeon and Professor of Urology at the University of Turin, Italy, in the science programme Delta on Italian television, March 12 1986.)
@mrcynic77 Re surgery..."I have seen surgeons who carried out experiments on some organs from dogs in the belief that these were identical with those of humans, and they did not know they were cutting into a quite different organ, even into a lymphatic gland instead of the thyroid gland. Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals...
@mrcynic77 The onus is on supporters of animal experiments (usually people whose income, titles and future are based on them) to explain how human medicine can have advanced by animal experiments ehn no animal is predictive for humans
peta as penn and teller already showed some people wouldnt be alive today if it wasnt for animal testing i am a diabetic insulin was first developed by testing on bovines i would fucking be alive it it wasnt for it sounds to me peta like you want to let people die well also you guys want to save animals when yourself kill them and go watch that episode of penn and teller bs thank you thats all i have to say
@cb19882000 Actually diabetics 9and the rest of us) woudl be better off without animal experiments. Aniaml exp. led scientists to believe that diabetes was a liver rather than a pancreatic disease see curedisease. net / faqs / faq08. shtml (add w's remove spaces) As usual supporters of AE do not show a causal rel. between AE and any benefit to humans.
@cb19882000 "The scientists Banting and Best were incorrectly credited with the discovery of insulin."
(Dr M. Barron, "The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans Diabetes with Special Reference to Cases of Pancreatic Lithiasis", Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, November 5 1920.)
@cb19882000 "Unfortunately, the condition of a dog with a small but healthy part of his pancreas left is essentially different from that of a person suffering from diabetes... in human diabetes two factors are present:
an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and
the detrimental effect of improper diet."
(Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)
The great majority of perinatal toxicological studies seem to be intended to convey medico-legal protection to the pharmaceutical houses and political protection to the official regulatory bodies, rather than produce information that might be of value in human therapeutics. Prof Hawkins, Drugs and Pregnancy: Human Teratogenesis and Related Problems, p 41-49 (publ. Churchill Livingstone).
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
A 97.5% failure rate for animal 'tests'..."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
@sneakybeaver100 30 years of animal experiments and still no cure...and no surprise....2004
...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.
FUCK! I FUCKING HATED ALL THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS WHEN I SAW THIS! IT MADE ME THINK WHAT THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS WOULD FEEL IF THEY WERE BEING TESTED! I MEAN CMON! WHAT THE HECK!? WHY JUST WHY?! IT MAKES ME WANT TO DO SOMETHING BUT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO! ITS JUST WRONG!!
Many activists claim that computational modeling is an alternative to animal models. But that is incorrect. Many modeling techniques, such as protein homology 3D structure prediction, requires knowledge of the genetics in animals like mouse in order to give better performance. In essence, those programs harness the evolutionary conservation. And how do we learn about the genetics of other animals? You guess it, animal research. Simply put, just knowing human biology is not enough.
I'm doing an essay on animal testing and my opinion is that its really stupid! As the video said u cant accuratly apply the results to humans. I care and I really want to help the animals. The scientist that test on these poor animlas have no lives and they are heartless and if a scientist sees this video and all the comments, they should know y=that half their life, they ve been horrible and stupid. yah i said it. i may not know what goes on in the labs, but i kno its not pretty!
thing is that people dont care. the truth is that people care more about the human race. they would sacrifice thousands of animals to save their child who is dying of cancer, their father who got wounded in war, their family is more important to them. what they do saves lives for sure, but THE THINGS LIKE THIS are not worth the lives of any living creature on this planet. human beings are disgusting at times,but i couldn't say i wouldn't do the same for my own daughters life. not sayingits right
“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.;
"As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)
@molomannen [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
@nomonkeymedforhumans That quote is specifically directed to cancer drugs design. Also, the guy who said it, Homer Pearce, is a supporter of animal research. He was simply saying that improvements of animal models have to be made, such as modifying the genetic makeup of a mouse to make its exhibited phenotype resemble more closer to a human's
this is soo upsetting what is wrong with the some people they dont even feel badd while they are killing and hurting these helpless animalss i how they all go to hell and they deserve to feel all of the pain they put those animals throughh this is pointless and stupidd
this is soo upsetting what is wrong with the some people they dont even feel badd while they are killing and hurting these helpless animalss i how they all go to hell and they deserve to feel all of the pain they put those animals throughh this is pointless and stupidd
We need to start torturing and killing people who work for these places and the business owners as well. their deaths should be absolutely horrific and made public for anyone who whould like to see. Good humans need to be militant and get these polititians doing what we want and stop this madness. animal testing is killing people not helping them. why can't we know how many public $ are involved and why cant we have all this bloated spending punished properly.
@benzieproductions Too bad they're such hypocrites that no one's brave enough to go do it. I'd call Ingrid Newkirk and her flock a bunch of chickens, but that'd be insulting chickens the world over.
oh so wewe shouldnt test on animals so then new products that are put in use may be harmful to humans since they werent tested on animals. 1 monkey's life is saved but dozens, thousands, even millions of people may get sick or die. you people are inhuman, animal ass kissers. these people are doing their jobs to try to save your stupid asses so fuck u all.
@Dude0096 I have many products that were not tested on animals and they are very good products. Sometimes they are more expensive but to me they are worth it. Your pathetic little rant is so sad. Life must be difficult for you. You have so much anger.
@Dude0096 Don't be fooled by propoganda. "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
Animal testing is great, whether we learn anything new or not. Let's burn pigs and put barbeque sauce on them. Then lets force feed them to PETA members and take notes. Anything for science.
We need more animal testing, especially tests to find out how many animals fit in Ingrid Newkirk's butt.
Animal testing really holds no merit. It's completely wrong morally and is usually literally wrong. Testing often leads to no real solution being as animals are different than us. It should be illegal. If they want to test the effects of testing why can't they recreate parts of the human body (which is possible) or test on human cells. That is better for science and for animals.
Humans can eat chocolate, garlic, and onions, but cats and dogs will die or get very sick if they eat them.
By law new drugs have to go under animal testing. The problem is not the testers but the law. The testers shouldn't rot in hell, they are doing their job. To a person who loves roaches, one who goes around killing them in their house, should rot in hell. That statement "rot in hell" is terribly irrational.
we shouldnt test medicine on animals you know theres always pedophiles or serial killers who deserve te worst death possible like medicine experiments
@DCfreak87 Unfortunately this gives the impression that if we dont do animal tests we must use humans. This is not the case. Firstly the animal tests do not work anyway therefore we are being tested on when we eat breathe drink or use an animal 'tested' substance. Secondly valid testing diminishes harm to humans see drugtestingconference. com and curedisease. net We are aware that pro animal exp. people make this 'test on criminals' claim to mislead people
Fuck animal testing and fuck all those involved in these evil atrocities. I wish it was easy to find shampoos and stuff that has not been tested on animals.
Animal experiments cause human illness, they dont stop it. As the former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research labs in the world, Dr Ralph Haywood said, "The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions between human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons." curedisease. net mrmcmed. org vivisectionresearch. ca
The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.
Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.curedisease. net mrmcmed. org
what is animal test.....they should teach them to talk and chat and say like what mishka did like i wuv u...and a playground to play...id call it......daddy day care..llol the movie
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
I have half a mind to go in there with a machine gun and kill every single human and free all those animals that are dying and are not getting a chance to live at all. FUCKTARDS. this makes me sick
I support animal testing. It saves human lives, and those who are closed-minded enough to say it's unnecessary are damned fools. I have family members that would be dead right now without this testing.
@NinjaGhostScorpion There are other ways of testing products.. like scientists have figured away to clone human skin cells (or some crap like that) and they can test that. And "haters" are not closed minded, because were stronger then them and have the power to we do this kind of stuff, animal testing is disgusting, everyone involved in it is just a waist of space, and i swear if i were to be left alone in a room with some of those people i would hurt them so bad it would make you puke!
@NinjaGhostScorpion So...what your applying to is, even though we have cell based models. Volunteers. We have to do them on animals?? Im shocked and disgusted. I don't have any idea how those sick "scientists" go in there and listen to the screams of those poor animals who can FEEL just like we do. Tell me this, would you allow to put YOUR pet through this..gruesome torture so you can buy a shampoo thats helps your hair? Or a medicine that helps a cough? All these ppl r doing is playing God.
@blondie1351 Reading what you said made me sad. A mind should never be closed when expressing a thought. These scientists are saving lives. And if it costs the world a few rats, it is an acceptable price. Far better than hundreds of thousands of human lives. Yes, other animals are used, and yes, it's sad. But I'm not talking about shampoo. I'm talking pharmaceuticals. Speaking of shampoo, what makes you so sure I'm not bald?
@NinjaGhostScorpion So the cost of saving lives, is torturing others? Is that how the world works nowadays? The innocent animals who have done nothing being tortured, electrocuted, burned, diseased versus..maybe human prisoners who tortured, electrocuted, burned, diseased, murdered, raped, etc others? You can't be 100% accurate when testing on animals...so why not humans?
@NinjaGhostScorpion But you probably think its better to torture innocent animals, then guilty humans. But honestly, I don't think your truly seeing into what those animals are living and going through. Imagine yourself having to endure the 24/7 torture through their dark merciless life. Maybe you don't see animals the same way, but these scientists will never achieve what there trying to achieve if they keep playing God...It will just end up in disaster & more suffering.
@NinjaGhostScorpion I never said all humans were??? Im talking about the ones that have done horrible and disgusting murder rather then the animals who've done nothing. And I'm not talking about wether all humans r guilty im talking about the suffering of thousands of domestic and exotic animals.
@fuckamerica109 r u fuckin stupid u fucking ass hole?!?!?!?!? animals are like humans, they should be free to do whatever and u should be tested on u fuckin little prick, ur a little bitch that fucks his mom everynight u little fucker. go suck ur moms dick.
Just because human kind is more intelligent and more "higher up" as people say, then other animals, what the hell gives us the right to use and abuse these helpless beings. Animals have every right to be here on this planet, and have every right to be free from pain and discomfort.
@shazpie not exactly higher up on the food chain is important. which would have more of an effect on earth a man or an animal. an animal cannot design a way to feed the poor. a man can, if he puts his mind to it. and grow up there is no right for much anymore. if vaccines for polio were not invented where would we be right now? you and me most likely would be crippled at the least.
@CliveKoopa I dont get it any specific places, but I do know that toothpaste and deodorants that don't test on animals and that are completely natural are Toms of Maine and they can be found at walgreens and thats what I use, im pretty sure they have bodywash and shampoo and conditioners too, and they work really well
Animal testing is WRONG and it SICKENS me. As a minor I am not "entitled" to have a say, and even if I was, the chances of it being heard by anyone who could do something about it are VERY slim, but anyway personally, I think that becoming a vegan or even a vegetarian is not necessary because that is life. We cant stop that. Other animals get killed in the wild, whereas with animal testing, it is NOT natural and can be stopped, if products like soap and glory, Natural Co., and the body shop
@LittleMissJaydee Just because you are a "minor" doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion. Everyone is allowed to have their say whatever their age.
@BROWNVBOARD You keep making this claim at different vids but never give any evidence to back it up. Species difference makes it impossible to base med. for one species on any other..."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." DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984. curedisease. net
Animal testing still happens because no matter how many years go by people still do not listen. And by the way another reason is money. Almost Anything on this planet that makes a big enough profit will be allowed by the government. I am pretty sure if I dealt drugs And gave a large percentage of the money to the government I would be protected by the law as long as it wasn,t in the public eye. Its all about appearances and smoke screens with the government .
research.....monkey blood could be a cure for aids, but fuck it, NO ANIMAL TESTING! until someone you love gets it. then you would say, burn, bash, throw, kill, and bleed out all the monkeys it takes to get a cure, once it affects you, then you will change your mind, fuck peta, (not capped for a reason) peta is a lost cause, so is being vegan/vegetarian, living said "lifestyles" kill more animals than it saves.
actually no i,m afraid not my grandmother died of cancer and I would not want animals tortured to death for a cure. And guess what animal testing does nothing they react differently to humans so you cannot gain anything from these tests the only people that gain anything are the worthless deserve to die bosses of these companies. Innocent animals are killed everyday because of humans fear of death. Get over it if you die you die . Leave animals alone
You don,t need a cure for aids you retard its very simple. Use protection during sex duh!. If everybody used common sense and used protection during sex aids would eventually be eradicated because the people who have it would die and everybody else would be using protection. You don,t need evil people killing animals for a cure to aids people could cure it themselves if they used their brains and used protection.
they are so cruel! they are not helping anyone so why do they do it?
i saw when they tested the animal and it died they put it in a dirty bin
how would they like it were testing on if the animals where put weird gizmoz in the brains or but them in cages with no food sunlight or water i saw on a website they sewed a monkey's eyes shut and tied a tube on his hand that sucked his blood they killed a monkey and it had a baby and they killed the baby too. and god will put them in hell :( boohoo.
so what ur saying is these animals posed for this pictures and then go on to live their happy lives?? its hardly exaggeration. what u on this site for anyway if your just gna slabber and be an arsehole. and yeh peta made the video cz their people go undercover an take these pics/videos for the public to see. and wot??
your a fucking dumbshit and I bet you have been brainwashed into thinking that this pointless torture and death is ok because its in the name of (science). Ihave seen videos of dogs being punched thrown and had tubes forced down their throats whilst crying in terror. And they do much worse to monkeys and rabbits. How is that exaggerating. And if you don,t like youtube then fuck off why have an account and leave comments
Even tho animal testing has helped scientifically it still dosn't make animals ok to be tested on...they ARE NOT HUMANS...i always feel horrible when i hear of something where animals die or suffer like in this video...and it hurt worse when they showed the kittens cuz a have a major soft spot 4 kittens and i have 3 and my cuz has sum tht r 9 weeks old dont get me wrong i love animals but seeing kittens there makes me mad and sick animals shouldnt have to die for us weve already hut them 2 much
animal need to live i agree with all of you for animal they killed them when there through testing i know that my friend said he saw that and try to stop it but they kelp going and would not stop take a stand for animal protest againt them do what ever it take and if you own a beagle they love to test on them so watch your dog don,t keep it outside while your gone i know somone that had her 2collie stolen and they used them for testing
Someone commented this video saying that if a company didnt test their shampoo on animals then "30 people would go blind" and 1 animal would go blind.. well its not just 1 dog that goes blind its thousands and they dont go blind they die. Animals have as much right to live as we do so why should an animal die for a cleaning product and so bankers can have more money in their pocket
100's of people would die if we didn't test on animals? More than 100,000,000 animals die because of 100 people?
I'm pretty sure those 100 people wouldn't die the way the animals die.
People aren't that different from animals- they feel pain, just like we do. They suffer, just like we do.
You would like to be beaten, have your head opened up with your brain sticking out, your eyelids taped shut, and other stupid and wrong things to you? I don't think so.
mmm...might have me a ham, beef, butter, chicken, egg, bacon sandwich...then I'm gonna buy a leather jacket, wear leather pants that are held up with a leather belt, and wear wool socks. If anyone who believes animals should be left alone and also believes in global warming know this...if we eat more beef then we'll decrease the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by cows (which is massive next to other animals except termites) and thus save earth for all animals (though global warming's a scam)
Sorry but I get gaseous sometimes. but not nearly as much as when I eat BEANS. also methane gas from cows even if ten or a thousand times their current population, it is negligable compared to the the output of gasoline cars or coal. Furthermore the earth has been in a warming trend for the last FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
too fucking true killerr125 that would be fucking funny but people need to fucking realise that 1000's of people would die if we didnt test on animals but these products have to pass a test before being used on animals so it isnt as bad as all u turd burgling shit stabbers are makin it out to be
Yes it is as bad as these people are saying. Ever hear of Splenda? It killed every animal they gave it too and they still marketed it to us and it's still out there now. Jackass!!!
It's like the octuplet situation- you're dealing with the scientific- very clinical- very removed from any sort of HUMAN-ess- FEELINGS or any sense or morality. Just all about getting the results- forget what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN REALITY.
i wish anyone who thinks that is right would be tourtured until they crack there spine. fuck all animal testers! p.s thank you people who abused the anima testers fuck u animal testers
they cant do that.....i cant believe how dumb people are.i cant watch these videos.its just too horrible.they could use vegetables and not animals for f**** sake.
anyone who thinks this is right and excuses this has serious problems.with all the up to date technology this world has,there should be a better way to find out if products are harmless or not.becuase almost every product tested on animals will not have the same effect as it does on a human.i think they test on animals knowing full well what the outcome will be,knowing that pain will be cause just so that they can say it is safe for humans.well it wasnt safe for the animal you tested it on TWAT!
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
The argument about 'would you let those people die' is pretty fallacious and more based on emotions than logic. The end doesn't always justify the means. So would you kill or torture human, defenseless children in the name of some 'greater good' scheme? What if you happened to [be] that child? See, it doesn't work that way. Then they say humans dominate over animals and that it's natural. This is faulty too. Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's 'good'. Look at rape for instance.
Animal testing may be harsh, but its necessary. Imagine l'oreal released a shampoo having not tested it, and 30 people went blind. I'd say that would be worse than one animal going blind.
they suffer just like we do, and we're all basically the same: but the results obtained from testing are worthless because its "unscientific" and "not the same"
what a poorly conceived ad- which is it - we're the same or different?
of course the reality is that without animal testing: no bio medicine. we should forcibly prevent all the people involved in this ad from obtaining ANY products coming from animal testing.
i know animal testing isnt a pleasant thing, but the fact is that we need to test on animals.animals have completely different DNA to us- but their bodies react the same way to drugs as our own bodies-in the majority of cases.i think the pain and suffering of animals-in the case of drug testing;not cosmetics.its justified when you think of how many millions of lives are saved everyday through drugs. And by law- a drug cannot be available to the public unless it has been tested on animals.
why? instead leave innocent animals alone that have every right to their life and test people that are on death row. They are going to die anyway and also you would actually get a correct result because you are testing on a human. And one of the many terrible facts are about these tests . Is that the animals would forgive those evil people for what they did to them and be a loving companion the very next day. All those people that did that don,t deserve life and should be killed.
oh shut up dont eat another meat product if you stand by your remarks...i mean do you step on cochroches?? do you kill flies or spiders and ants...so dont be a hypocrit
The argument of 'so what about spiders and ants' doesn't work. It is pretty much unethical to kill a spider IF the spider has the capacity to suffer/feel pleasure and the will to live just like it would be to do kill a human. YET it would be UNREALISTIC to ban humans from doing that to them. See the difference?
This has been flagged as spam show
The Final Solution: Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids and forced to participate. While this is ocurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured.. They will be told from the start that as soon as their last remaining loved one is dead that they will go through the process themselves. This should be done to everyone and their family members who profit from this. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
theraviolicat2 6 months ago
i can't see any relevance for testing on animals considering they react differently to various chemicals etc. Whats the alternative cloned human skin??? i think thats wrong too, can't they do a something where people can volunteer and be paid.
UndeadRenegade1 6 months ago
What legal actions can be taken to stop this cruelty? Are there not laws that go against this?
lisagoldberg75 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What legal actions can be taken to stop this cruelty? Are there not laws that go against this?
lisagoldberg75 7 months ago
What legal actions can be taken to stop this cruelty? Are there not laws that go against this?
lisagoldberg75 7 months ago
I'm just hoping that animals be used instead of stem cells and genetic DNA from humans.
God put animals on the earth for one reason so that humans can use them for their food, benefits, and research.
Sevethelta 7 months ago
peta would say different if it was their loved ones dying of cancer. oh wait, they will just be hypocrites and use the product, then deny its usefulness.
cole3454657 7 months ago
if they arae making this for us then why dont they just try it on people, animals are not like humans. i cant belive they are still getting away with this
supersonic7657 10 months ago
I have a solution= lets do all this testing with criminals who have done very bad things for example multimurder or rape so they are atleast some use for the mankind.
Or if just selfish women would stop using make-up.
Somethingcrappy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[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
This has been flagged as spam show
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.
noratmedicine 10 months ago
tell that to the fucking woman who wouldnt be alive today thanks to animal testing patty wolf she had strep throat it went into her kidneys it destroyed them she was having to go on dialysis so the doctor put a cowneck atery in her left arm so it filtered her blood and cleaned it and when back into her it kept her alive for 2 kidney transplants she soon got anemia and drugs developed through animal research saved her life now dont fucking tell me your peta bs
cb19882000 11 months ago
@cb19882000 firstly the cowneck is an animal aprt not an experiment and human parts would be more effective anyway. dialysis is not the result of animal experiments and re drug developement...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"
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@cb19882000...But tissue differences between humans and rats proved that animal experiments were once again misleading. The encouraging results had raised hopes that a major advance in clinical immunosuppression for transplantation was in the offing, but these hopes have now faded and nothing of the great mass of work has been translated into clinical practice."
(John Fabre of Oxford's Nuffield Department of Surgery, Transplantation, Vol. 34, 1982, pages 223-234.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@cb19882000 kidney transplants..."Results from animal experiments in the 1960s suggested that there might be important advances in transplantation and there-by prompted a large amount of further research into heart and kidney transplants in rats...
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@noratmedicine Way to quote a 30 year old paper... Go to pub med. Type in animal model. Get back 100,000 + results. Please explain how animal testing has not advanced medical knowledge. And yes, 92% of drugs fail in clinical trials. But does everyone in the clinical trial die? No. That's because the drugs were tested on animals first. If you hate medical progress so much, never visit a doctor, take medications or undergo surgery. If you do, you are the benefactor of animal research.
mrcynic77 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 As humans and mice went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is hard to imagine how 30 years could be significant. The fact that there are 100,000 plus animals models and not even a single cure for a human disease year after year tells a lot. As no animal is predictive for humans they cannot advance medical knowledge, if you have a particular eg you believe in please present that. people in clinical trials dont die as testing is stopped
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 100,000plus animal models also indicates how many people careers and income rely on it, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand the truth when his salary depends on him not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair)
"Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless."
- Dr James D. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 14 1964.
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty of suffering animals against the gain of humanity spared from suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not to mankind."---The 1963 Report of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Expert Committee on Drug Toxicity
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 "Animal studies can neither prove or guarantee the safety of any drug. They are not a substitute for testing in humans".--J Jennings, Vice President Science & Technology of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans…In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability."
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@noratmedicine well dr gundersheimer is a retard, how can you explain the over hundred diseases and treatments, drugs and procedures animal testing has brought us?
cole3454657 7 months ago
@mrcynic77 Report of the Medical Research Council "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species."
The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers."
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."
noratmedicine 10 months ago
noratmedicine 10 months ago
...First, patients and physicians should remain
cautious about extrapolating the findings of prominent animal
research to the care of human disease. In addition, this study had limited
power to discern individual predictors of translation.
Nevertheless, we believe these findings have important
implications. First, patients and physicians should remain
cautious about extrapolating the findings of prominent animal
research to the care of human disease.
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 ...for highly cited human studies.4 Limitations
of this review include a focus on highly cited animal studies
published in leading journals, which by their positive and highly
visible nature may have been more likely to translate than less
frequently cited research. In addition, this study had limited
power to discern individual predictors of translation.
Nevertheless, we believe these findings have important
implications.
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 100,000plus animal models...and not one of them is predictive for a human. Here is a 2006 paper published in the JAMA..."Comment. Only about a third of highly cited animal research
translated at the level of human randomized trials. This
rate of translation is lower than the recently estimated 44%
replication rate...
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 ...He has only learnt wrongly through animals. I have been able to see this over my many decades as a surgeon, also as a Director of Hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal."
(Prof. Sr Salvatore Rocca Rossetti, Surgeon and Professor of Urology at the University of Turin, Italy, in the science programme Delta on Italian television, March 12 1986.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 Re surgery..."I have seen surgeons who carried out experiments on some organs from dogs in the belief that these were identical with those of humans, and they did not know they were cutting into a quite different organ, even into a lymphatic gland instead of the thyroid gland. Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals...
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@mrcynic77 The onus is on supporters of animal experiments (usually people whose income, titles and future are based on them) to explain how human medicine can have advanced by animal experiments ehn no animal is predictive for humans
noratmedicine 10 months ago
Comment removed
cb19882000 11 months ago
peta as penn and teller already showed some people wouldnt be alive today if it wasnt for animal testing i am a diabetic insulin was first developed by testing on bovines i would fucking be alive it it wasnt for it sounds to me peta like you want to let people die well also you guys want to save animals when yourself kill them and go watch that episode of penn and teller bs thank you thats all i have to say
cb19882000 11 months ago
@cb19882000 Actually diabetics 9and the rest of us) woudl be better off without animal experiments. Aniaml exp. led scientists to believe that diabetes was a liver rather than a pancreatic disease see curedisease. net / faqs / faq08. shtml (add w's remove spaces) As usual supporters of AE do not show a causal rel. between AE and any benefit to humans.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@cb19882000 During the 1920s, the dog experiments performed by scientists Banting and Best were strongly criticised as:
"... a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments."
(Dr F. Roberts, "Insulin", British Medical Journal, 1922.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@cb19882000 "The scientists Banting and Best were incorrectly credited with the discovery of insulin."
(Dr M. Barron, "The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans Diabetes with Special Reference to Cases of Pancreatic Lithiasis", Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, November 5 1920.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@cb19882000 "Unfortunately, the condition of a dog with a small but healthy part of his pancreas left is essentially different from that of a person suffering from diabetes... in human diabetes two factors are present:
an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and
the detrimental effect of improper diet."
(Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
Real motive for animal 'tests'...1983
The great majority of perinatal toxicological studies seem to be intended to convey medico-legal protection to the pharmaceutical houses and political protection to the official regulatory bodies, rather than produce information that might be of value in human therapeutics. Prof Hawkins, Drugs and Pregnancy: Human Teratogenesis and Related Problems, p 41-49 (publ. Churchill Livingstone).
curedisease. net
noratmedicine 11 months ago
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
noratmedicine 11 months ago
A 97.5% failure rate for animal 'tests'..."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
curedisease. net
noratmedicine 11 months ago
If they invent a cure for aids, anyone against animal testing should not be allowed to use it, because thats where the cure is coming from.
sneakybeaver100 11 months ago
@sneakybeaver100 30 years of animal experiments and still no cure...and no surprise....2004
...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.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
FUCK! I FUCKING HATED ALL THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS WHEN I SAW THIS! IT MADE ME THINK WHAT THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS WOULD FEEL IF THEY WERE BEING TESTED! I MEAN CMON! WHAT THE HECK!? WHY JUST WHY?! IT MAKES ME WANT TO DO SOMETHING BUT I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO! ITS JUST WRONG!!
DaMeAnGuy 1 year ago
Many activists claim that computational modeling is an alternative to animal models. But that is incorrect. Many modeling techniques, such as protein homology 3D structure prediction, requires knowledge of the genetics in animals like mouse in order to give better performance. In essence, those programs harness the evolutionary conservation. And how do we learn about the genetics of other animals? You guess it, animal research. Simply put, just knowing human biology is not enough.
Casshyr 1 year ago
STOP ANIMAL TESTING
pearllaVonne5 1 year ago
I'm doing an essay on animal testing and my opinion is that its really stupid! As the video said u cant accuratly apply the results to humans. I care and I really want to help the animals. The scientist that test on these poor animlas have no lives and they are heartless and if a scientist sees this video and all the comments, they should know y=that half their life, they ve been horrible and stupid. yah i said it. i may not know what goes on in the labs, but i kno its not pretty!
432toto 1 year ago
thing is that people dont care. the truth is that people care more about the human race. they would sacrifice thousands of animals to save their child who is dying of cancer, their father who got wounded in war, their family is more important to them. what they do saves lives for sure, but THE THINGS LIKE THIS are not worth the lives of any living creature on this planet. human beings are disgusting at times,but i couldn't say i wouldn't do the same for my own daughters life. not sayingits right
emili143ify 1 year ago
“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.;
curedisease. net
noratmedicine 1 year ago
"As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)
curedisease. net
noratmedicine 1 year ago
they have to test medic on animals before humans... stupids ;)
molomannen 1 year ago
@molomannen [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
curedisease. net
nomonkeymedforhumans 1 year ago
@nomonkeymedforhumans That quote is specifically directed to cancer drugs design. Also, the guy who said it, Homer Pearce, is a supporter of animal research. He was simply saying that improvements of animal models have to be made, such as modifying the genetic makeup of a mouse to make its exhibited phenotype resemble more closer to a human's
Casshyr 1 year ago
this is soo upsetting what is wrong with the some people they dont even feel badd while they are killing and hurting these helpless animalss i how they all go to hell and they deserve to feel all of the pain they put those animals throughh this is pointless and stupidd
this should be illgeal
!!
0533uo 1 year ago
this is soo upsetting what is wrong with the some people they dont even feel badd while they are killing and hurting these helpless animalss i how they all go to hell and they deserve to feel all of the pain they put those animals throughh this is pointless and stupidd
!!
0533uo 1 year ago
We need to start torturing and killing people who work for these places and the business owners as well. their deaths should be absolutely horrific and made public for anyone who whould like to see. Good humans need to be militant and get these polititians doing what we want and stop this madness. animal testing is killing people not helping them. why can't we know how many public $ are involved and why cant we have all this bloated spending punished properly.
00000blue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@all Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Mohandas Gandhi
brandonent50 1 year ago
testing on peta members would solve both sides of this issue
benzieproductions 1 year ago
@benzieproductions Too bad they're such hypocrites that no one's brave enough to go do it. I'd call Ingrid Newkirk and her flock a bunch of chickens, but that'd be insulting chickens the world over.
NinjaGhostScorpion 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion hahaha good man.
benzieproductions 1 year ago
oh so wewe shouldnt test on animals so then new products that are put in use may be harmful to humans since they werent tested on animals. 1 monkey's life is saved but dozens, thousands, even millions of people may get sick or die. you people are inhuman, animal ass kissers. these people are doing their jobs to try to save your stupid asses so fuck u all.
Dude0096 1 year ago
@Dude0096 I have many products that were not tested on animals and they are very good products. Sometimes they are more expensive but to me they are worth it. Your pathetic little rant is so sad. Life must be difficult for you. You have so much anger.
blkcpdconure 1 year ago
@Dude0096 Don't be fooled by propoganda. "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)
noratmedicine 1 year ago
they have pedos in jail use them at least they disserve it
omgcausethecowgosmoo 1 year ago
Animal testing is great, whether we learn anything new or not. Let's burn pigs and put barbeque sauce on them. Then lets force feed them to PETA members and take notes. Anything for science.
We need more animal testing, especially tests to find out how many animals fit in Ingrid Newkirk's butt.
zz44aa 1 year ago
Animal testing really holds no merit. It's completely wrong morally and is usually literally wrong. Testing often leads to no real solution being as animals are different than us. It should be illegal. If they want to test the effects of testing why can't they recreate parts of the human body (which is possible) or test on human cells. That is better for science and for animals.
Humans can eat chocolate, garlic, and onions, but cats and dogs will die or get very sick if they eat them.
MrTaikutsu 1 year ago
By law new drugs have to go under animal testing. The problem is not the testers but the law. The testers shouldn't rot in hell, they are doing their job. To a person who loves roaches, one who goes around killing them in their house, should rot in hell. That statement "rot in hell" is terribly irrational.
MrTaikutsu 1 year ago
yeah stop animal testing and instead test on peta people saves animals and kills peta members perfect solution
theredsockssuck 1 year ago
we shouldnt test medicine on animals you know theres always pedophiles or serial killers who deserve te worst death possible like medicine experiments
DCfreak87 1 year ago
@DCfreak87 Unfortunately this gives the impression that if we dont do animal tests we must use humans. This is not the case. Firstly the animal tests do not work anyway therefore we are being tested on when we eat breathe drink or use an animal 'tested' substance. Secondly valid testing diminishes harm to humans see drugtestingconference. com and curedisease. net We are aware that pro animal exp. people make this 'test on criminals' claim to mislead people
noratmedicine 1 year ago
Fuck animal testing and fuck all those involved in these evil atrocities. I wish it was easy to find shampoos and stuff that has not been tested on animals.
CliveKoopa 1 year ago
Animal experiments cause human illness, they dont stop it. As the former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research labs in the world, Dr Ralph Haywood said, "The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions between human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons." curedisease. net mrmcmed. org vivisectionresearch. ca
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.
Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.curedisease. net mrmcmed. org
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
even though i don't like the foul languge, i agree with puppypal41
LittleKalieBug 1 year ago
i'm not that vain i'd rather wash my hair with soap than wash it with death shampoo
TheLaviniaheather 1 year ago
what is animal test.....they should teach them to talk and chat and say like what mishka did like i wuv u...and a playground to play...id call it......daddy day care..llol the movie
halofan38 1 year ago
i just dont know what to say......
so sad and speechless ;[[[[[[
wowitsandrew 1 year ago
Fuck the Government For allowing THIS SHIT!
gusto1978 1 year ago 10
ths is so bad, i though the bible held all the answers until i saw this STOP THIS OR GOD WILL PUNISH U !
CrayonINC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
HumaneSociety10 1 year ago
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
HumaneSociety10 1 year ago
I would really enjoy putting these sick bastards in a room and do exactly the same thing they do on these poor defensless animals.
craig1377 1 year ago 8
These people are fucked.
I have half a mind to go in there with a machine gun and kill every single human and free all those animals that are dying and are not getting a chance to live at all. FUCKTARDS. this makes me sick
darkprincesskatia 1 year ago 2
@darkprincesskatia Agreed. Then once every animal is out of there, I would torch the place or blow it to pieces.
CliveKoopa 1 year ago
animal testing is cruelity please avoid this crulity
waleedpopalzai 1 year ago
I support animal testing. It saves human lives, and those who are closed-minded enough to say it's unnecessary are damned fools. I have family members that would be dead right now without this testing.
NinjaGhostScorpion 1 year ago
i have mixed feelings about it
SpartanW98 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion There are other ways of testing products.. like scientists have figured away to clone human skin cells (or some crap like that) and they can test that. And "haters" are not closed minded, because were stronger then them and have the power to we do this kind of stuff, animal testing is disgusting, everyone involved in it is just a waist of space, and i swear if i were to be left alone in a room with some of those people i would hurt them so bad it would make you puke!
DollyandCO17 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion So...what your applying to is, even though we have cell based models. Volunteers. We have to do them on animals?? Im shocked and disgusted. I don't have any idea how those sick "scientists" go in there and listen to the screams of those poor animals who can FEEL just like we do. Tell me this, would you allow to put YOUR pet through this..gruesome torture so you can buy a shampoo thats helps your hair? Or a medicine that helps a cough? All these ppl r doing is playing God.
blondie1351 1 year ago
@blondie1351 Reading what you said made me sad. A mind should never be closed when expressing a thought. These scientists are saving lives. And if it costs the world a few rats, it is an acceptable price. Far better than hundreds of thousands of human lives. Yes, other animals are used, and yes, it's sad. But I'm not talking about shampoo. I'm talking pharmaceuticals. Speaking of shampoo, what makes you so sure I'm not bald?
NinjaGhostScorpion 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion So the cost of saving lives, is torturing others? Is that how the world works nowadays? The innocent animals who have done nothing being tortured, electrocuted, burned, diseased versus..maybe human prisoners who tortured, electrocuted, burned, diseased, murdered, raped, etc others? You can't be 100% accurate when testing on animals...so why not humans?
blondie1351 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion But you probably think its better to torture innocent animals, then guilty humans. But honestly, I don't think your truly seeing into what those animals are living and going through. Imagine yourself having to endure the 24/7 torture through their dark merciless life. Maybe you don't see animals the same way, but these scientists will never achieve what there trying to achieve if they keep playing God...It will just end up in disaster & more suffering.
blondie1351 1 year ago
@blondie1351 Not all humans are guilty.
NinjaGhostScorpion 1 year ago
@NinjaGhostScorpion I never said all humans were??? Im talking about the ones that have done horrible and disgusting murder rather then the animals who've done nothing. And I'm not talking about wether all humans r guilty im talking about the suffering of thousands of domestic and exotic animals.
blondie1351 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
animals are stupid they deserve to be tested on
fuckamerica109 1 year ago
@fuckamerica109 r u fuckin stupid u fucking ass hole?!?!?!?!? animals are like humans, they should be free to do whatever and u should be tested on u fuckin little prick, ur a little bitch that fucks his mom everynight u little fucker. go suck ur moms dick.
HumaneSociety10 1 year ago
What an insightful and intelligent comment. You strike me as someone who knows what hes talking about.
fuckamerica109 1 year ago
This is fucked up, all those experiment dudes can go fuck yourselfs.
Slashtastical 1 year ago
Just because human kind is more intelligent and more "higher up" as people say, then other animals, what the hell gives us the right to use and abuse these helpless beings. Animals have every right to be here on this planet, and have every right to be free from pain and discomfort.
shazpie 2 years ago 15
@shazpie not exactly higher up on the food chain is important. which would have more of an effect on earth a man or an animal. an animal cannot design a way to feed the poor. a man can, if he puts his mind to it. and grow up there is no right for much anymore. if vaccines for polio were not invented where would we be right now? you and me most likely would be crippled at the least.
fearsrampage1313 1 year ago
I don't use any products that test on animals, I use Urban Decay, Lush, and Tresseme... none of them test on animals
Polarbeargirl345 2 years ago 2
@Polarbeargirl345 Where do I find these products you mention? Everywhere I go its always Colgate and Palmolive, etc.
CliveKoopa 1 year ago
@CliveKoopa I dont get it any specific places, but I do know that toothpaste and deodorants that don't test on animals and that are completely natural are Toms of Maine and they can be found at walgreens and thats what I use, im pretty sure they have bodywash and shampoo and conditioners too, and they work really well
Polarbeargirl345 1 year ago
@Polarbeargirl345 I've never heard of Toms of Maine or Walgreens. Are those American companies? I'm from the UK btw.
CliveKoopa 1 year ago
Animal testing is WRONG and it SICKENS me. As a minor I am not "entitled" to have a say, and even if I was, the chances of it being heard by anyone who could do something about it are VERY slim, but anyway personally, I think that becoming a vegan or even a vegetarian is not necessary because that is life. We cant stop that. Other animals get killed in the wild, whereas with animal testing, it is NOT natural and can be stopped, if products like soap and glory, Natural Co., and the body shop
LittleMissJaydee 2 years ago 2
you do have a say, you just have to make it heard.
imadiscoduck90 2 years ago
@LittleMissJaydee Just because you are a "minor" doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion. Everyone is allowed to have their say whatever their age.
CliveKoopa 1 year ago
@CliveKoopa Animal testing is very necessary you dumbass.
BROWNVBOARD 1 year ago
@BROWNVBOARD You keep making this claim at different vids but never give any evidence to back it up. Species difference makes it impossible to base med. for one species on any other..."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." DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984. curedisease. net
noratmedicine 1 year ago
i do not support animal testing in fact it sikens me but i am not giveing up meat
hannathebuneary 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
people
eating
tasty
animals
i'm definetley a member :D
spartan2520 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh! and human testing is not ?
Let's all save the animals cose humans are fucked.
licasixpack 2 years ago
"Animal testing is wrong. Please do not puy [sic] products or use products that were tested on animals. "
That's right, everybody!
Don't buy anything that came from testing on animals!
Don't buy, or even use computers! Most, if not all, of their internal components are direct, or at least indirect, product of animal research!
The same goes for house insulation, concrete, toothpaste, aspirin and other painkillers, and the vaccinations you received when you were a baby!
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
If you own a pet, you need to give him away! Let a friend have him, let a shelter have him, or just let him live in the wild!
All of those yucky delicious, nutritious, and healthy food you're feeding him are products of animal testing!
So are the life-saving, disease-preventing vaccinations you had injected into his bloodstream! Shame on you!
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
I mean, animal testing is TOTALLY pointless, right?
That must be why they put so much money into it, right?
That's why it still happens, right?
It's not accomplishing anything, so there's OBVIOUSLY no reason to continue it, right?!
(sarcasm for the last three posts, just so there's no confusion)
Tag'd
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
Animal testing still happens because no matter how many years go by people still do not listen. And by the way another reason is money. Almost Anything on this planet that makes a big enough profit will be allowed by the government. I am pretty sure if I dealt drugs And gave a large percentage of the money to the government I would be protected by the law as long as it wasn,t in the public eye. Its all about appearances and smoke screens with the government .
6117240 2 years ago
research.....monkey blood could be a cure for aids, but fuck it, NO ANIMAL TESTING! until someone you love gets it. then you would say, burn, bash, throw, kill, and bleed out all the monkeys it takes to get a cure, once it affects you, then you will change your mind, fuck peta, (not capped for a reason) peta is a lost cause, so is being vegan/vegetarian, living said "lifestyles" kill more animals than it saves.
Boozehound817 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FINALLY SOMEONE THAT UNDERSTANDS!!
freeformrules 2 years ago
actually no i,m afraid not my grandmother died of cancer and I would not want animals tortured to death for a cure. And guess what animal testing does nothing they react differently to humans so you cannot gain anything from these tests the only people that gain anything are the worthless deserve to die bosses of these companies. Innocent animals are killed everyday because of humans fear of death. Get over it if you die you die . Leave animals alone
6117240 2 years ago
but i bet your grandma would have loved a cure, or would you tell her to just go die and leave animals alone? i think not....
douche bag.
Boozehound817 2 years ago
HA HA AH, OH WOW.
"Grandma, I love you, but I love animals more, so just die, okay?"
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
You don,t need a cure for aids you retard its very simple. Use protection during sex duh!. If everybody used common sense and used protection during sex aids would eventually be eradicated because the people who have it would die and everybody else would be using protection. You don,t need evil people killing animals for a cure to aids people could cure it themselves if they used their brains and used protection.
6117240 2 years ago
yup, the cure for aids is wearing a condom!
Disneygreatestsongs 2 years ago
this is so wrong!!!
why the hell would they do this!!!
they deserve so much better than this......i wanna find those animal testers
and i wanna show them the same torture
just so they'll finally realize the pain and suffering the animals went through
DamonZonnie 2 years ago
they are so cruel! they are not helping anyone so why do they do it?
i saw when they tested the animal and it died they put it in a dirty bin
how would they like it were testing on if the animals where put weird gizmoz in the brains or but them in cages with no food sunlight or water i saw on a website they sewed a monkey's eyes shut and tied a tube on his hand that sucked his blood they killed a monkey and it had a baby and they killed the baby too. and god will put them in hell :( boohoo.
mzve 2 years ago 2
this is horrible, but I guess.. that's life.
smoke a bowel and get high everyone.
TeeFlick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU FUCKING DUMB SHITS.
YOU DO REALIZE PETA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS VIDEO, NO?
AND THAT PETA EXAGGERATES THINGS BEYOND BELIEF?
PETA'S TRYING TO FUCKING BRAINWASH YOU, AND YOU'RE LETTING THEM WIN?!
Well, I should have expected as much; this IS YouTube, after all...
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
so what ur saying is these animals posed for this pictures and then go on to live their happy lives?? its hardly exaggeration. what u on this site for anyway if your just gna slabber and be an arsehole. and yeh peta made the video cz their people go undercover an take these pics/videos for the public to see. and wot??
lauralush04 2 years ago 2
hi umm im confused on what u were saying could u reply to this with less swearing and more explaining cause i dont understand what u are saying
CowboyChaser121 2 years ago
> CowboyChaser121:
I'd explain, but I'd have to find the previous user of this account.
Dunno what he meant when he posted that.
At any rate, I'm all for taking care of an injured animal, but...
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
your a fucking dumbshit and I bet you have been brainwashed into thinking that this pointless torture and death is ok because its in the name of (science). Ihave seen videos of dogs being punched thrown and had tubes forced down their throats whilst crying in terror. And they do much worse to monkeys and rabbits. How is that exaggerating. And if you don,t like youtube then fuck off why have an account and leave comments
6117240 2 years ago
Oh WUT?
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
Even tho animal testing has helped scientifically it still dosn't make animals ok to be tested on...they ARE NOT HUMANS...i always feel horrible when i hear of something where animals die or suffer like in this video...and it hurt worse when they showed the kittens cuz a have a major soft spot 4 kittens and i have 3 and my cuz has sum tht r 9 weeks old dont get me wrong i love animals but seeing kittens there makes me mad and sick animals shouldnt have to die for us weve already hut them 2 much
sakuransasuke223 2 years ago
stop animal testing NOW!!!!!!!!!! thats so sad it makes me cry
chrisbrownrocks100 2 years ago
animal need to live i agree with all of you for animal they killed them when there through testing i know that my friend said he saw that and try to stop it but they kelp going and would not stop take a stand for animal protest againt them do what ever it take and if you own a beagle they love to test on them so watch your dog don,t keep it outside while your gone i know somone that had her 2collie stolen and they used them for testing
muffet22222222 2 years ago
Save Our Animals!Do not animal testing is wrong.
puppy788 2 years ago 4
Once the animals have had their lives raped away from them they are killed
mattypooz 2 years ago 3
Someone commented this video saying that if a company didnt test their shampoo on animals then "30 people would go blind" and 1 animal would go blind.. well its not just 1 dog that goes blind its thousands and they dont go blind they die. Animals have as much right to live as we do so why should an animal die for a cleaning product and so bankers can have more money in their pocket
beka123beka 2 years ago 17
Now THAT's where the real bullshit starts.
Why don't they just engineer a SAFER shampoo, hm?
If 30 people would go blind, then that' a shampoo nobody should use in the first place, amirite?
MagicalRetard333 2 years ago
yep
they could make a safer shampoo
and I use a shampoo that hasnt been tested on animals and neither has its ingredients and I havnt gone blind
beka123beka 2 years ago
100's of people would die if we didn't test on animals? More than 100,000,000 animals die because of 100 people?
I'm pretty sure those 100 people wouldn't die the way the animals die.
People aren't that different from animals- they feel pain, just like we do. They suffer, just like we do.
You would like to be beaten, have your head opened up with your brain sticking out, your eyelids taped shut, and other stupid and wrong things to you? I don't think so.
GreenSaddle 2 years ago 2
mmm...might have me a ham, beef, butter, chicken, egg, bacon sandwich...then I'm gonna buy a leather jacket, wear leather pants that are held up with a leather belt, and wear wool socks. If anyone who believes animals should be left alone and also believes in global warming know this...if we eat more beef then we'll decrease the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by cows (which is massive next to other animals except termites) and thus save earth for all animals (though global warming's a scam)
SpideyNinety08 2 years ago
By eating cows green house gases emitted go up
beka123beka 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it was a joke, regardless, human caused global warmings a scam
SpideyNinety08 2 years ago
Sorry but I get gaseous sometimes. but not nearly as much as when I eat BEANS. also methane gas from cows even if ten or a thousand times their current population, it is negligable compared to the the output of gasoline cars or coal. Furthermore the earth has been in a warming trend for the last FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
lazyidiotofthemonth 2 years ago
too fucking true killerr125 that would be fucking funny but people need to fucking realise that 1000's of people would die if we didnt test on animals but these products have to pass a test before being used on animals so it isnt as bad as all u turd burgling shit stabbers are makin it out to be
DJsalmon1994 2 years ago
Yes it is as bad as these people are saying. Ever hear of Splenda? It killed every animal they gave it too and they still marketed it to us and it's still out there now. Jackass!!!
sealgryhnd 2 years ago
this isnt wrong.. its fuckin funny thats wat it is i think they should make monkeys with wings and shit
killerr125 2 years ago
They should have made you without a brain, oh wait.... they did, you jackass. It would be funny if they tested on you.
sealgryhnd 2 years ago 3
It may be wrong but ain't there more important things to think of , climate, economy etc
Tomsy101 2 years ago
oh yes, think of money, you dickweed. It is more important than life, right?
sealgryhnd 2 years ago 2
This is horrific- and completely unnecessary.
It's like the octuplet situation- you're dealing with the scientific- very clinical- very removed from any sort of HUMAN-ess- FEELINGS or any sense or morality. Just all about getting the results- forget what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN REALITY.
It's just disgusting. This is HORRIBLE.
AlabasterDog 3 years ago
i wish anyone who thinks that is right would be tourtured until they crack there spine. fuck all animal testers! p.s thank you people who abused the anima testers fuck u animal testers
hidannyshanehere 3 years ago
they cant do that.....i cant believe how dumb people are.i cant watch these videos.its just too horrible.they could use vegetables and not animals for f**** sake.
luffi238 3 years ago
anyone who thinks this is right and excuses this has serious problems.with all the up to date technology this world has,there should be a better way to find out if products are harmless or not.becuase almost every product tested on animals will not have the same effect as it does on a human.i think they test on animals knowing full well what the outcome will be,knowing that pain will be cause just so that they can say it is safe for humans.well it wasnt safe for the animal you tested it on TWAT!
xoVERAA 3 years ago
people who test on animals should ROT IN HELL!!!!!!!!
puppypal41 3 years ago 13
Hello, I am Quinn. I work for the Humane Society, we need to end this. Sign a petition and send it to the address linked "Animal Testing101". We need your support : ) Please help stop this!
HumaneSociety10 1 year ago
@puppypal41 Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Mohandas Gandhi
brandonent50 1 year ago
The argument about 'would you let those people die' is pretty fallacious and more based on emotions than logic. The end doesn't always justify the means. So would you kill or torture human, defenseless children in the name of some 'greater good' scheme? What if you happened to [be] that child? See, it doesn't work that way. Then they say humans dominate over animals and that it's natural. This is faulty too. Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's 'good'. Look at rape for instance.
GoodJokeGoneBad 3 years ago
Animal testing may be harsh, but its necessary. Imagine l'oreal released a shampoo having not tested it, and 30 people went blind. I'd say that would be worse than one animal going blind.
computerman1081 3 years ago
Animals dont go blind
They die
and its not just 1 animal dying
its thousands
and doesnt that animal have as much right to live life as we do?
beka123beka 2 years ago 5
I can't go more than thirty seconds of this without crying.
sick fuckers.
blackscarlett1 3 years ago 3
Sick Fucks.
VakomaNOVA 3 years ago 2
they suffer just like we do, and we're all basically the same: but the results obtained from testing are worthless because its "unscientific" and "not the same"
what a poorly conceived ad- which is it - we're the same or different?
of course the reality is that without animal testing: no bio medicine. we should forcibly prevent all the people involved in this ad from obtaining ANY products coming from animal testing.
lictor313 3 years ago
I don't understand how anyone can think this is fucking ethical. How can you treat a poor defensless animal like that!?
KaytiiUchiha 3 years ago 3
i feel sick
Cheygrrl95 3 years ago
i know animal testing isnt a pleasant thing, but the fact is that we need to test on animals.animals have completely different DNA to us- but their bodies react the same way to drugs as our own bodies-in the majority of cases.i think the pain and suffering of animals-in the case of drug testing;not cosmetics.its justified when you think of how many millions of lives are saved everyday through drugs. And by law- a drug cannot be available to the public unless it has been tested on animals.
pinkdazzledust 3 years ago
why? instead leave innocent animals alone that have every right to their life and test people that are on death row. They are going to die anyway and also you would actually get a correct result because you are testing on a human. And one of the many terrible facts are about these tests . Is that the animals would forgive those evil people for what they did to them and be a loving companion the very next day. All those people that did that don,t deserve life and should be killed.
6117240 2 years ago
if you're anti animal testing, you can help by donating yourself to research and saving the animals :)
RocknRollDina 3 years ago
oh shut up dont eat another meat product if you stand by your remarks...i mean do you step on cochroches?? do you kill flies or spiders and ants...so dont be a hypocrit
svenles29 3 years ago
The argument of 'so what about spiders and ants' doesn't work. It is pretty much unethical to kill a spider IF the spider has the capacity to suffer/feel pleasure and the will to live just like it would be to do kill a human. YET it would be UNREALISTIC to ban humans from doing that to them. See the difference?
GoodJokeGoneBad 3 years ago