Just saying if god was real why would he let all of this be happening to the animals and if he is so great why cant he stop it he made the universe didnt he? Theres a question for you!
I think personally that the person who made the drug ect should test it on themselves because all they are doing is putting the pain and misery on animals who have their rights which arent being followed
I understand that we need to test drugs before we send them out into the public, and no one's going to willingly volunteer to test a drug that they have no idea what will do, but it's still sad. From someone who loves animals and science equally, I can only say that I wish there was another way.. but as of now, there isn't.
Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids, even forced to participate. While this is occurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured, no water. 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 also. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
I sacrifice squirrels to my god is that wrong? i cut the heads off you hear them grunt and try to get away i use an old rusty blade from my barn i then tie the heads to my back tree near the treeline and all the heads there that's where the great owl of bohemia lives its a simple offering but i must say at night if you get a flash light and shine it on that tree you can see the heads slowly swaying in the wind it sends a chill down your spine no squirrels go near that tree they sense the death.
"According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, animal research has helped extend our life expectancy by 23.5 years. Of course, how you choose to spend those extra years is up to you." - Foundation for Biomedical Research
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."
D. Lorke, Institute of Toxicology, Bayer, AG "…even if the LD50 could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is hardly possible."
"The predictive reliability of this technique has been questioned and its use on living animals has been criticized." (Beecham Products Research Dept.
"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."
@noratmedicine And what is also terrible is that we can have makeup etc but we still choose to test on animals to use different chemicals in our products.Vegan products work fine and so does other makeup that arent vegan but they incist on carrying on using new chemicals its perfectic. All the testing is so unessasary.
And what also anoys me is that are alowed to say the product is curelty free just coz they havent tested the FINAL PRODUCT on animals.But they pay a 3rd party to test ingrediants
# "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
Yes this is horrible but other animals rip other animals apart and have no guilt emotion. Some animals even attack babies just so they can be leader. Hamsters eat there own babies just coz they want there home to themselves.
Nature and people are horrible.
I dont know how the animals or thease people do it. It brakes my heart that theres THINGS like that out there that seem to enjoy this suffering.
@Leanneldok21 Killing ones own offspring is contrary to ones own interests and would nto occur in a natural environment. In nature suffering is usually brief and serves a purpose
@noratmedicine Yeah i understand what you mean. Thease animals are suffering just because we wanna look good for a few hours.. (makeup, hair stuff, even soap and dog food is tested on animals)
Nearly all makeup out there has ingrediants tested on animals and i never knew till a week ago so i have gone completely vegan with cosmetics and beauty products. And now im always carful what i buy.
@Leanneldok21 Yes and the cruel irony is tha the animal 'tests' do not work anyway, ie they conceal effects on humans and are only a legal device. i'll provide a few quotes re that..."As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
Animal testing is fucking wrong. And so is eating meat and using animals for entertainment. Humans are fucking heartless monsters!!!!!!!! Vegan and proud of it....
FUCK THE PEOPLE THAT TEST ON ANIMALS YOU DESERVE A FUCKING SPOT RIGHT NEXT TO FUCKING BITCH ASS SATIN AND FUCK YOU WHO EVER DISLIKED THIS ANIMALS ARE THE BEST I WOULD GET ALL THE ANIMALS AND THEN NUKE THE COMPANIES THAT TEST ON ANIMALS 122 PEOPLE GO TO HELL!!!!! :) :)
Scientists dont really use common house pets like Dogs or Cats. Unless they are testing diseases that are found in cats or dogs. Just thought i would put this out there.
@trokulop Yes, sir alexander fleming, former director of US national cancer institute etc being some of those people. And..."You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both…" Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November. 2006
Again, if you have evidence to support the claim that human med. can be based on another species I am happy to reply
@noratmedicine Listen, it's not that I can't, its just that I won't. I honestly don't care if you agree with animal testing or not, so I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you when you are more then capable of finding the information yourself.
@trokulop I think it is far more likely that you have seen from my responses that claims made in support of animal exp do not stand up to scrutiny and are therefore relictant to provide more claims which will be proven wrong. the invitation remains open ofcourse
@jeabo0adhd As no evidence has been provided to show that animal exp. has saved lives your offer is based on a false premise. Not sure what your baby reference is about.
A 250,000 pound prize was offerred by Prof. vernon Coleman to any vivisector or anyone else who could find just one person saved as a direct result of an animal experiment, in 3 months and with their reputations on the line not a single person could be found
@noratmedicine If you can't see/understand all of the benefits that animal testing provides, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. It is what it is, animal testing is here to stay.
To say that human medicine cannot be reliably based on mice, dogs, monkeys or any other species is actually the conservative position based on common sense and evidence. It is presented as the opposite to the public, that is not an accident
@noratmedicine "But there is not point in using the biological system of another species as it is not predictive for humans " => but that's where you're wrong tho. Low prediction is only talked in terms of predicting phenotypic effects, say the outcome of a drug. But if you're talking about usefulness of what we learn in terms of biology, I have already given you so many examples in the past (i.e. Hox genes, PcG, existence of microRNA, CpG methylation...)
@noratmedicine I'm not talking about cures. I'm talking about establishing gene function here, because you gotta know what's happening inside a cell before you can design any drug. My claim is that with the help of animal models, you can deduce a function of a gene faster than without. Are you saying you agree with that statement then?
@Casshyr 200 million plus animals a year used in experiments and no cures, that is significant. Re gene function, animals are still not predictive, they may or may not be correct, you know that examples where what is true in mice and in humasn are arrived at retrospectively. I dont think there are any cases in which the best way to eliminate a human illness is via animal experiments, whether it is ethical to do certain things to huamns is an aside as that is not required to remedy problem
@noratmedicine No there are cures, they're just not based on animal testing. But those drugs are designed based on our knowledge gathered from study of both animal + human + computational models. I'm not saying every mouse gene shares a function with every gene in human, but the Mouse Genome Consortium in 2002 did a genome-wide study of mouse and find that over 80% of the mouse genes are likely to share a function with human genes, and that's a lot.
@Casshyr Thanks, id think that the mouse genome consortium would want to suggest that their work was valuable as i know it is very time consuming and therefore expensive. Mouse models are not curing human diseases and that will always be the bottom line.
@noratmedicine well you can always use that argument for any research that supports animal models (i.e. blame that the source is biased), and I could use the same argument to criticize any scientists who are against animal models...but i agree mouse models are not for curing diseases, at least not directly. they are for boosting our understanding of human biology, which is the first step before one can design any drug. I agree the actual drug testing part should ideally be done in humans
@Casshyr Much evidence has been provided to show that claims made in support of AE have been wrong and the poeple providing that evidence are often speaking against their own interests. Microdosing (for drug testing) does not require animals and is more accurate than animal testing. Others can be found at drugtestingconference. com
@noratmedicine I am interested to know how you feel about using animals to study biology in general tho. You constantly refer to how microdosing or population-wide studies give better drug testing results, but I'm not talking about drug testing now. Earlier I claim that using animal models help us understand more about biology in general, without necessary direct relation to drug design. Do you agree with that?
@Casshyr Thanks. While I do not deny that there are similarities identified retrospectively i still feel that other species have little value predictively. Some basic similarities exist but only a small difference between species can make a therapy or procedure effective in one species ineffective or even harmful in another. I'm just saying that for practical purposes animal exp. is not achieving what it promises or claims to have achieved historically
@noratmedicine Well, I respect your opinion, but many of the findings done in animal models or plants have been awarded Nobel prizes (ex. microRNA). Obviously the scientific community has agreed those researches deserve recognition, whether the contribution is for medical field or others. So I feel your phrase "other species have little value" may need to be refined, especially if we are talking about broader areas that go beyond simply human medicine.
@Casshyr There have also been petitions to the board which gives the nobel prize saying that someone else should have won the nobel prize, this has happenned more than once. Nobel prizes are not given by the scientific community. As no animal is predictive for humans no advancement to humans can be a direct result of an animal experiment.
In the instances wherein animals were used for the Nobel Prize-winning results, they were not necessary.
Though animal tissue research was the convention, human tissue was available and more viable - as many Nobel Prize winners have since remarked. The discovery of the DNA double helix, arguably the 20th Century's most important medical breakthrough, would have been impossible without the non-animal methods of technology and in vitro research.
@noratmedicine An example following my thoughts would be imagine we don't test on animals. Then this means the discovery of microRNA is delayed. Of course scientists would most likely discover microRNA in humans later, but how much is the delay going to be? 1 year? 5 year? 10? 20? You can argue the delay is worth the wait, considering the animals lives saved, but another person can easily say no the delay is not worth it, and that even 1 year is bad.
@Casshyr Considering that very little funding goes into 'alternatives' we can only speculate about what would have happenned if things were more balanced in this way
@noratmedicine That's true. But until the alternatives are more mature and can fully replace animal studies, we shouldn't stop animal testing. I've already said that many computational modelings require knowledge of other animal to make better predictions in humans. And human in vitro testing has its own faults that make it not able to fully replace animal in vivo studies (it does complement it tho, that i agree). And stem cell research right now is still like a science fiction...
@Casshyr Re 'alternatives"... “Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection...
@noratmedicine Thanks for the quote. I am familiar with Dr. Pietro Croce. He actually is not denying studying biology on animal models tho. He is mainly only against testing drugs on animals, which I partially agree as well. My main concern is people are often blurring between using animals to design drugs, and using animals to study basic biology. More scientists are against the first, but only a few are opposed to the latter.
@Casshyr Considering that his book is called "Vivisection or Science? A Choice to make" and after having read it myself I can say that he is opposed to all animal experimentation. I will agree that it is more tenable to study basic biology via animals than it is to claim predictiveness for humans such as drug studies
Didn't all Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Physiology experiment on animals?
Yes, most did. But it doesn't follow that the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and accessible.
From the second half of the 19th century onward, experimenting on animals became part of all medical curricula. Therefore researchers were obliged to perform animal experiments to earn their degrees.
@noratmedicine "But it doesn't follow that the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and accessible." => that's one way to interpret it. Another way is to say that this means experimenting with animals do produce good results. An example I've already given is the discovery of microRNA in worms. Obviously one could also have discovered microRNA in humans, but you can't deny studying animals have produced good results
@noratmedicine To give you a more perspective example, imagine I give you a DNA sequence that encodes for a gene, called it gene X. And I ask you: what does this gene do in your body? How would you go about doing it? You can try computational modeling, which in the end, is only an educated guess. Or you can try tissue culture, which can only give you a rough functional categorization at the tissue level. Or you can do animal model, and hope that human gene X shares high homology to mouse's X
@trokulop This does not provide evidence only claims. These are based on a fallacious form of argument known as 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' ie after that therefore because of that. This suggests that a causal rel. exists between two things simply because one occurred after the other. That is not evidence. Perhaps you can tell me the top 5 things you are sure were the result of animal experiments and i will reply to thise claims
I can't believe this. God put people on this earth right? Well if we where put on here to LIVE and If the animals where also put on this earth then does't that mean so where they??!!
activists often say we can replace animal testing with computational models. But this is not always true. There are many computational models that use evolution conservation, which means it requires both knowledge of human biology as well as biology of related species, such as a mouse. Such programs thus require animal research to generate input data for those models. Hence, animal testing and computational models are not exclusive, they complement each other!
@Casshyr Firstly computer models are not the only 'alternative', secondly the animal 'tests' do not work anyway, ie they are not predictive for humans. see curedisease. net or drugtestingconference. com These computer models do not require animal tests as they are not medels for mice, they imitate the human body and are usually used with human cells and micro dosing mass spectrometry may also be used. This combination is far superior to animal 'tests' which are a legal, not a scientific device
@noratmedicine Not entirely correct: many computer models require knowledge of pathways in other animal system besides human to make accurate inferences. I've already mentioned methods that use evolutionary models. This ties in with the whole concept of using homologs from say a mouse to make better predictions about what's happening inside a human body. I know this cuz this is my field lol, so trust me when I say computer models and animal in vivo models are not mutually exclusive
@Casshyr Can only advise that you compare results from microdosing with animal tests. also the human genome would have to be more enlightening in regard to humans than the mouse or other genome. identical must be better than similar.
@noratmedicine Also, you keep mentioning drug testing. But animal models aren't just for drug testing. A large part is for studying underlying biological pathways. You can't design a drug without knowing which pathway, which enzyme, to target on. This is why basic research is so important. MS is good, but you can't do perturbation studies on humans. For example, if you want to know what happens phenotypically if you knock out MAPK pathway, you can't do that on humans.
@Casshyr The bottome line will always be does it result in a cure? in this regard animal models have not succeeded, we hear many claims about why this or that is very promising etc based on mice models or others but we do not hear of a cure.
@noratmedicine but animal studies are generally not meant to replace human drug testing (some may disagree me on this point), but I think it is safe to say that the primary purpose of animal model is to study biological pathways, rather than testing drug effects. So if your argument is "we should stop testing human drugs on animals", fine. But if you are arguing that "we should stop all animal research entirely", then I disagree.
we should stop cruelty on dogs and horses, these animals really are our friends, and I'm sure they feel the same way about us. primates on the other hand, have some ability of reasoning, so we could show some respect to them too. but as far as other mammos go, I don't think we should feel so guilty. as for non-mammos, do these animals even have feelings?
@rtc5196 I'd appreciate it if you stated your opinion in a more mature manner. Instead of deciding just because you dont agree, that my opinion is wrong, why dont you try and look at it from my point of view instead. And why watch something you know you wont agree with just to start an argument -_-
@rtc5196 Look up soviet animal tests and then tell me if u still agree for its one thing to give a mouse a common cold and inject it with something that definately wont kill or harm it and its another thing to cut off a dogs head to see its reflexes just on pure curiousity
@TheaBrAmSoN Also giving mice a cold won't help us anyway. 200 million animals killed in 'experiments' each year and no disease cured.
"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans." Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6. 1998
@noratmedicine no disease cured, but at least the diseases are being held and kept away from wiping out mankind. And by the way, they have already started using other methods:
"Two NIH institutes will work with the EPA to use the NIH Chemical Genomics Center's (NCGC) high-speed, automated screening robots to test compounds researchers suspect are toxic. The robots, created for the human genome project, could perform 10,000 cell screenings, using isolated molecular targets, each day"
@Pepsimaniaco Im pleased about the quote you have oprovided thats good news. please dont be duped into believing that diseases are being kept at bay by animal experiments. virtually all of the enviro pollutants, carcinogens etc have been tested on animals, this is a cause of disease but not a cure
@noratmedicine well, i thank god that those tests are being made on animals (i do believe that they do not deserve that) instead of humans beings... However, animal test has provide a wide variety of important findings. Those animals that died during the experiments did not die in vain. I do agree with you that this seems to be brutal and inhuman. Actually i have to write a persuasive essay about this issue and thanks to you i got good ideas. Animals don't deserve this for sure!
@Pepsimaniaco I didnt say it was brutal and inhuman i said it was not curing human disease or benefitting humans. Seems like you have made your mind up I can only advise that you see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org nzavs. org. nz vivisectionresearch. ca for a start.
Please tell me say 5 of the most important things you say came from animal experiments and i will reply to that with evidence and expert opinion
@noratmedicine im not going to tell you the 5 important things that came from animal testings (at least not now) .. but i can quote something that i'd love you to reply with evidence and expert opinion.
"Humans are clearly unique amongst animals in our abilities and intellect. Animals do not experience pain and emotion in the same way that we do because they lack language and the power of abstract thought"...
So, what do you thing? Remember we are here to debate not to fight.. :) Cheers!
@Pepsimaniaco My feeling about this quote is that its irrelevant and the sort of thing used to distract from the issue which is that humans med cant be based on rats, dogs, cats etc. Personally i do think animals may be smarter and feel more emotions and certainly feel pain, but that is a very different issue. If you are referring to peter singer in your essay you may want to google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby"
@Pepsimaniaco This relates to the valid anti animal exp. position (ie the scientific human health pos. not the animal rights one, though i clearly see that it violates their rights in the extreme) in that all species are different and that is precisely why medicine for one species cannot be based on another. agian, curedisease. net mrmcmed. org etc are good sites, should give them to you teacher so he learns something too, no douibt will think its a philosophical issue otherwise
@Pepsimaniaco Regarding accuracy of animal 'tests', you may want to include stats liek these in your essay...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. That is a 97.5% failure rate.
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
"...there is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species difference. Dr Lin, In Vitro Toxicology, vol 1
@Pepsimaniaco its good to see that even their own textbook gets it right sometimes..."Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans." Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press).1994
@noratmedicine Thanks for you informative replays, i will look up about Ajundem-nos! ...just a couple of questions, do you blame scientists or politicians? cause remember, some countries require scientists to test their products on animals, scientists have no choice. Regarding religious, i not gonna ask you if you believe in god or not, but what would you say about bible saying that animals have being created to serve humans in any means? This may be use as defense for many people! Thx Cherrs
@Pepsimaniaco Thanks, and thansk for caring about this issue, a most well hidden and misrepresented one. Blame is firstly with drug, chem, tobacco etc co's and industries whose products do ahrm humans, they derive legal protection from the misleading results, no payouts for thalidomide, warniongs kept off cigarette packs for 10 years etc. govt is also resp. and are connected to these industries, scientists whose careers are based on animal exp will also defend them to the end. c curedisease. net
@noratmedicine Thank you! I see that you strongly (if not strongly, intensely) disagree with the allowance of animal testing. I have to admit, i do believe that animal testing is necessary in a certain way, i mean aren't they the same animals we kill with poison to get them out of our streets or our house? how many chickens are being killed just for consumption? We need to find a better way to end their lives. Now this may sound pathetic and inhuman but you know it's true [...]
@Pepsimaniaco Thanks. You seem to be convinced that humans benefit from animal experiments, a great deal has been done to convince the public that this is true and i also believed it once. I can only advise that you look at the sites ive suggested for a start. As we do not benefit from animal exp. but are in fact harmed by substances which pass them and as animal based research consistently fails to cure human illness i cannot agree. there is nothing to weigh up, thats is the essential diff.
@Pepsimaniaco I'll be back tomorrow. If you still think we benefit from animal exp. after looking at those sites you can tell me in what way and ill reply tomorrow...using the library computer. re mice..." Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice.[23] ...
@Pepsimaniaco ...If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong....
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.[25]
@Pepsimaniaco 25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4."
So you see the fact that we poison mice anyway is irrelevant as we are not benefitting from using them in research. Even primates are not predictive for humans
@noratmedicine [...] people use the same shampoo that has been tested on animals (do not tell me you don't wash you hair cause im not gonnga believe you), the same anesthetics doctors used has been tested on animals, now here is the thing.. just because 95% of the tests are useless to humans that does not mean the following tests are going to be wrong too. Unfortunately we don't have the enough technology to replace animals with robots or any other machine [...]
@Pepsimaniaco Firstly, there are many non animal tested products and they are healthier for humans... re. 95% wrong, as it is never possible to know which ones were right until after the fact that does not mean that 5% of tests are useful/necessary/vital etc. We do have real scientific methods, can only advise again that you see curedisease. net The living system of another species is not useful as it is not predictive.
@Pepsimaniaco re these 'tests'...# "As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
# "The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
@Pepsimaniaco "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
@Pepsimaniaco "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."
@Pepsimaniaco take it from the US national cancer institute after 25 years of failure with mice. human cell culture is better as it is correct for humans. cn be followed with mass spectrometry, computer models and micro dosing in humans (for drugs)
@noratmedicine [...]"The most radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy, etc., have all been made possible by animal research.." I wish i can quote all my sources but i can't for now. I love this kind of debates because we learn from each other, once again thanks for your time and god bless you.
@Pepsimaniaco i can provide quotes countering these but then we'll just be like spectators at a tennis game. one must consider who is making the quote, if it is supported by evidence, and if others who also benefit from animal experiments contradict this viewpoint. This can be a time consuming issue to investigate thoroughly. I suggest you start with the major claims made in support of animal exp. and then see what sites like curedisease. net have to say in response
Found to increase the risk of blood-clots leading to heart attacks, lung disorders and strokes. By 1980 over 400 deaths reported.
"Not only had the animal tests failed to identify the hazard, but in rats and dogs oral contraceptives produced entirely the opposite effect, making it more difficult for the blood to clot."
(Z. Bankowski and N. Howard-Jones, Biomedical Research Involving Animals.)
@Pepsimaniaco IVF [did have] only an approximate 10% success rate. In other words, it has a 90% failure rate! (1) 1. Robyn Rowland, Living Laboratories - Women and Reproductive Technologies, Sun, Australia, 1992.
Not sure what the success rate is now but if it has improved it will be as always through trial and error in humans as it has been performed many thousands of times now.
not sure of its origins but i doubt that a causal rel. between AE and any benefit to humans would exist
re hormone replacement therapy (HRT) Pro-Test also complained about a statement on the leaflet by EMP Trust that: Hormone replacement therapy increases women's risk of heart disease and stroke. Millions of prescriptions were based on monkey data, which predicted the opposite.
Pro-Test claimed that HRT was not prescribed on the basis of monkey data but EMP Trust provided abundant evidence to show that it was...
@Pepsimaniaco As you can see from quotes given the animal 'tested' procedure (even in primates) is harmful/lethal to many humans and trial and error in humans is what improves it. A causal rather than a casual rel. between any human benefit is not shown, the post hoc fallacy referred to earlier is relied on by supporters ov AE along with other fallacious forms of argument.
@noratmedicine Well, it's nice to hear about you again... I talked to my professor about this issue and what I was doing to improve my knowledge about the topic... Firstly, he said that this is a very problematic issue due to the exchange of arguments between the two parts, it's like you said .. like a tennis game. Then he said that even though many people believe that this is a very unnecessary procedure, it has had many benefits in medical fields as well as in military defense [...]
@noratmedicine according to a British website, it has many benefits you can go and check them out ( aboutanimaltesting. co. uk ) you can also check out this website which has many, many information about it:
adelaide. edu. au / ANZCCART / humane / benefit. html (without the spaces of course)
@Pepsimaniaco This site, whose purpose is to support animal tests again does not provide evidence to support such claims. As can be seen from the claims about IVF, oral contraceptives etc the truth is quite different. The main argument device used is the post hoc fallacy. Any positive claim can be made this way as with over 200 million animals used a year there will always be some to (retrospectively) refer to. I'll find a link to show all fallacious forms of argument used...
@Pepsimaniaco navs. org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_appendix for a full list and explanation of fallacious argument used. I would be happy to reply to specific claims made by your professor
@Pepsimaniaco Oxford Uni's pro animal exp. claims and a response are here. This may save me trouble of going over same claims... speakcampaigns. org / sitepages . php ?a=8
relying on a prestigious name or title instead of providing evidence is a fallacious form of argument called an 'appeal to authority'
@noratmedicine this is what i was talking about; you have nothing but hate against animal test. Professionally, You cannot argue something or defend your position with emotions, even though i believe that some of the reason you gave me before are partially true, you have not accepted any little fact about animal test being beneficial. When you write an argument, you have to list the pros and cons of the issue, but you, you would not discuss any benefit about it cause according to you, [...]
@Pepsimaniaco I will tell you concisely why and how the public is misled, you may call it a conspiracy theory if you like...drug/chem co's derive legal protection from misleading results from animal 'tests', they fund universities who do animal experiments, this provides them with employees and 'research' suitable to their ends, theya re major advertisers and inditrect owners of much media, they pay and promote philosophers like peter singer and 'donate' to political parties, they make fake...
@Pepsimaniaco ...anti vivisection groups and sites and infiltrate valid ones and uni's produce philosophers who peddle singers moral philosophy so the token or fake opponents are elevated to academics who take it as a given fact (without evidence) that humans benefit from AE. Other factors are gaining titles, getting published, income, status, inertia, lack of training in real scientific methods (usually called 'alternatives')
@Pepsimaniaco Some direct quotes from the site you referred me to..."Animal Testing Breakthroughs
An enormous breakthrough came in 1922 when animal testing allowed for insulin to be isolated from dogs..."
What actually happenned...Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing, asserting that insulin harvested from slaughterhouses saved the lives of many diabetics. This is true....
@Pepsimaniaco ...But the use of animals in the search for the cause of diabetes has been overwhelmingly counterproductive...
Diabetes affects in excess of 125 million people worldwide and is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the pancreas' role in the disease..
When they removed the pancreas from dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were claiming had proven the existence of insulin:
"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]
They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had isolated insulin.
Scientists later modified the in vitro process they had used to isolate insulin, successfully mass-producing pig and cattle insulin reaped in slaughterhouses. This animal-derived insulin indeed saved lives, but not without complications. It also created allergic reactions and exposed patients to serious health risks...
"There is no laboratory method of inducing diabetes... which is exactly comparable to the clinical condition. At best we can get only crude approximations. The dangers of arguing from one species to another, or even from one strain to another of the same species are certainly not to be neglected."
(Dr F.G. Young, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London, Lancet, December 18 1948, pages 955-956.)
@Pepsimaniaco "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: 1. an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and 2. the detrimental effect of improper diet."
(Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)
# "The causes of diabetes mellitus remains unknown in both man and animals. In spite of certain species similarities, there are a number of important differences - differences in clinical manifestation, in aetological factors and in the liability to certain long-term complications of the disease."
(Dr Harry Keen, BSc, M.R.C.P., "Spontaneous Diabetes in Man and Animals", Veterinary Record, July 9 1960, page 557.)
@Pepsimaniaco # "Arguments based on the insulin requirements of the depancreatised dog and cat applied to human diabetes are quantitatively dangerous."
(Dr F. G. Young, D.Sc., PhD., F.R.S., British Medical Journal, November 17 1951, pages 1167-1168.)
@Pepsimaniaco "At the CIBA Foundation, London, on 3 July, Prof. Houssay reviewed his group's work on the influence of sex hormones on the incidence and severity of experimental diabetes in the rat: but first warned his audience not to accept the results for other animals or for humans."
@Pepsimaniaco "Dr Banting, Canada's medical hero, who is popular and erroneously credited with the discovery of insulin by extirpating the pancreases of thousands of dogs, did not cause diabetes, but stress."
(J.A. Pratt, "A Reappraisal of Research Leading to the Discovery of Insulin", Journal of the History of Medicine, Vol. 9, 1954, pages 281-289.)
@Pepsimaniaco "The more we study diabetes, the more we discover the contradictory aspects of this malady. Fifty years ago, when insulin was discovered, we thought the mystery of diabetes had been resolved. But now the mystery keeps getting more mysterious."
(Ulrico de Aichelburg, writing in the authoritative Italian magazine EPOCA, September 21 1974.)
50 years and millions of animals later, still no cure
@Pepsimaniaco as you see from quotes re insulin the claims are not supported by evidence. could do same for all other claims. best if you tell me some as it is too time consuming to go over every claim. this site relies on the publics lack of knowledge and a belief that we benefitr from animal exp. again i am happy to reply to any claim, some hav ealready been covered (cosmetics, drug testing etc)
@noratmedicine there is no benefit on doing thoses tests. Nevertheless, I am interested on further responses about this issue. Why am I saying this? Because when you try to point or prove a point, the most difficult is for you to defend your position, the stronger is your argument. However, you said that there is no benefit on it, thus saying that there is nothing to argue about. Where is the argument then? Best Wishes
@Pepsimaniaco The arguemnt is that other people are certainly saying that there is benefit and the oppsition being presneted to the public is an animal rights one rather than a human health one. in other words the public is misled on this issue. If you want to write about this issue you show the claimed benefits, why theya re not true, why those claims are made
But a lot of those pictures weren't animal testing.. like the ones of the dogs..
But anyway. I feel bad for them, but I think that animal testing is sometimes necessary to make things safer for humans. Unless YOU want to volunteer to be a test subject. -__-
I do however, firmly believe that animals being tested should be treated better. D:< because some of that shit is just WRONG. and abusive.
@TheCrayolaSkies Actually that is not the choice, as the animal is not predictive for humans we are harmed by animal 'tested' substances, virtually all carcinogens, teratogens, pollutants, drugs even tobacco is tested on animals. this provides legal protection to industry but no physical protection to us. If you want to see how drugs should be tested see drugtestingconference. com or curedisease. net for a start
animal experiments are pointless fat companys make millions each year at the expence of animal suffering animals cant speak out so its the job of careing human beings to speak on the behalf of these innocent victims born to die in pointless experiments.
If scientists feel that a drug will be safer for humans if it is tested first on animals, then I would support animal testing. If people are against animal testing then would they be happy for their child to be prescribed a new drug that has not been tested as thoroughly as it could have been?
@nnmk001 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" As the animal 'tests' are wrong 92% of the time it is hard to imagine how we benefit from them. Pharmaceutical side effects are the fourth biggest killer in the western world and they all pass animal 'tests'. see curedisease. net
@nnmk001 a knowledgeable person would realise that as their child is not a rat or a dog then 'testing' on those species would not help their child. see drugtestingconference. com for valid testing methods such as microdosing
Just saying if god was real why would he let all of this be happening to the animals and if he is so great why cant he stop it he made the universe didnt he? Theres a question for you!
BUSTER3020 18 hours ago
I think personally that the person who made the drug ect should test it on themselves because all they are doing is putting the pain and misery on animals who have their rights which arent being followed
BUSTER3020 18 hours ago
I understand that we need to test drugs before we send them out into the public, and no one's going to willingly volunteer to test a drug that they have no idea what will do, but it's still sad. From someone who loves animals and science equally, I can only say that I wish there was another way.. but as of now, there isn't.
CallMeWhatsername 1 week ago
It was a joke ? ,are you for real .Thats nothing to joke about you idiot -.-
terryshaw9 1 month ago
wtFFFF PEOPLE ARE FKING INSANE. I hate you all who do that.
susurite2005 4 months ago
I hate the human race. I hate the fact that God allowed humans to populate this planet.
onischor 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theraviolicat you're a sick fuck you know that?
africandude1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every asshole who does this needs to be made to watch this done to his/her kids, even forced to participate. While this is occurring they should be housed as they have housed the animals they tortured, no water. 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 also. Exterminate the people doing this and their offspring.
theraviolicat 6 months ago
I sacrifice squirrels to my god is that wrong? i cut the heads off you hear them grunt and try to get away i use an old rusty blade from my barn i then tie the heads to my back tree near the treeline and all the heads there that's where the great owl of bohemia lives its a simple offering but i must say at night if you get a flash light and shine it on that tree you can see the heads slowly swaying in the wind it sends a chill down your spine no squirrels go near that tree they sense the death.
Academic1Researcher 6 months ago
Comment removed
doodlebugie28 6 months ago
@doodlebugie28 It was a joke calm down me acting like a "no-lifer" was the point
Academic1Researcher 6 months ago
To all those who say Animal Testing is non-harmful and has helped human life: READ PROPER SCIENCE INFO AND LOOK IN THE EYES OF THE ANIMALS.
SheledUmlal 6 months ago
Animals are almost never harmed through this and it's for a benefit to save more lives.
IamKivak 7 months ago
That's a really good video for a 12 year old.
DeathByMurdero0o 7 months ago
a lot of hard work goes on in labs to make sure animals are not hurt when being tested
wolfsraingirl123 7 months ago
If the gouverment is reading this stop animal testin
kaybs1000 8 months ago
Animals should be loved just like people.ALL THOSE WHO HATE ANIMALS SHOULD ROT IN HELL
1997nypd 8 months ago
Shame on the government of all countries for not taking any appropriate action against bloody scientists..
snitin1980 8 months ago
I NEVER!!!! EVER!!! EVER!!! Cry and then seeing what happens to these poor animals made me cry...Thank god my dog isn't some testing product.
MyWerewolves 9 months ago 2
Hate animal testing? Don't use anymore medicine, because I can guarantee you almost all of it was developed through animal testing
hundredand 9 months ago
i actually cried ): please, if you have a pet that you love, STOP ANIMAL TESTING!
Jonnsey12345 10 months ago 2
"According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, animal research has helped extend our life expectancy by 23.5 years. Of course, how you choose to spend those extra years is up to you." - Foundation for Biomedical Research
HiddenFacedMatt 10 months ago
this is sad
Luvzcookies18 10 months ago
THIS IS AMAZING
2rb01bcs 10 months ago
:0
2rb01bcs 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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."
curedisease. net
noratmedicine 10 months ago
D. Lorke, Institute of Toxicology, Bayer, AG "…even if the LD50 could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from the experimental animals to man is hardly possible."
"The predictive reliability of this technique has been questioned and its use on living animals has been criticized." (Beecham Products Research Dept.
noratmedicine 10 months 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.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@noratmedicine And what is also terrible is that we can have makeup etc but we still choose to test on animals to use different chemicals in our products.Vegan products work fine and so does other makeup that arent vegan but they incist on carrying on using new chemicals its perfectic. All the testing is so unessasary.
And what also anoys me is that are alowed to say the product is curelty free just coz they havent tested the FINAL PRODUCT on animals.But they pay a 3rd party to test ingrediants
Leanneldok21 10 months ago
@Leanneldok21 Yes, it is a crime. The animal 'test' provides legal protection to industry but no physical protection to us and is terribly cruel.
Dr Sharratt, British Petroleum "As an index of acute toxicity, this (LD50) is valueless."
) "…the rabbit eye is structurally and physiologically different from the human eye." (Johnson and Johnson)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
# "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
# "The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
(Sandra Davies, M.D., Columbia, Maryland.)
# "The results of these (animal) tests cannot be used to predict toxicity or to guide therapy in human exposure."
(Christopher D. Smith, M.D., Longbeach, California.)
# "The data produced by these tests don't keep harmful products from being sold."
(Ellen Michael, M.D., Beverley Shores, Indiana.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
Yes this is horrible but other animals rip other animals apart and have no guilt emotion. Some animals even attack babies just so they can be leader. Hamsters eat there own babies just coz they want there home to themselves.
Nature and people are horrible.
I dont know how the animals or thease people do it. It brakes my heart that theres THINGS like that out there that seem to enjoy this suffering.
Leanneldok21 10 months ago
@Leanneldok21 Killing ones own offspring is contrary to ones own interests and would nto occur in a natural environment. In nature suffering is usually brief and serves a purpose
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@noratmedicine Yeah i understand what you mean. Thease animals are suffering just because we wanna look good for a few hours.. (makeup, hair stuff, even soap and dog food is tested on animals)
Nearly all makeup out there has ingrediants tested on animals and i never knew till a week ago so i have gone completely vegan with cosmetics and beauty products. And now im always carful what i buy.
Leanneldok21 10 months ago
@Leanneldok21 Yes and the cruel irony is tha the animal 'tests' do not work anyway, ie they conceal effects on humans and are only a legal device. i'll provide a few quotes re that..."As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
noratmedicine 10 months ago
were has our humanity gone
Naturally141 10 months ago
Animal testing is fucking wrong. And so is eating meat and using animals for entertainment. Humans are fucking heartless monsters!!!!!!!! Vegan and proud of it....
nellupellu 11 months ago
FUCK THE PEOPLE THAT TEST ON ANIMALS YOU DESERVE A FUCKING SPOT RIGHT NEXT TO FUCKING BITCH ASS SATIN AND FUCK YOU WHO EVER DISLIKED THIS ANIMALS ARE THE BEST I WOULD GET ALL THE ANIMALS AND THEN NUKE THE COMPANIES THAT TEST ON ANIMALS 122 PEOPLE GO TO HELL!!!!! :) :)
MrIWANNABECOOL 11 months ago
I started to watch this., but i couldn't dare too. :( People who do that should be the ones dieing!
LadygagaLoverx 11 months ago
Good movie
NIVE0032 11 months ago
Scientists dont really use common house pets like Dogs or Cats. Unless they are testing diseases that are found in cats or dogs. Just thought i would put this out there.
Snootchatize 11 months ago
@Snootchatize they use dogs cats and rabbits all the time
bubs7569 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Well, I suppose everyone is entitled to there opinion.
trokulop 11 months ago
@trokulop Yes, sir alexander fleming, former director of US national cancer institute etc being some of those people. And..."You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both…" Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November. 2006
Again, if you have evidence to support the claim that human med. can be based on another species I am happy to reply
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Listen, it's not that I can't, its just that I won't. I honestly don't care if you agree with animal testing or not, so I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you when you are more then capable of finding the information yourself.
trokulop 11 months ago
@trokulop I think it is far more likely that you have seen from my responses that claims made in support of animal exp do not stand up to scrutiny and are therefore relictant to provide more claims which will be proven wrong. the invitation remains open ofcourse
noratmedicine 11 months ago
Here is a truce: We will stop using animals to save lives and you will stop using feti (plural latin for "baby") for the same reason.
jeabo0adhd 11 months ago
@jeabo0adhd As no evidence has been provided to show that animal exp. has saved lives your offer is based on a false premise. Not sure what your baby reference is about.
A 250,000 pound prize was offerred by Prof. vernon Coleman to any vivisector or anyone else who could find just one person saved as a direct result of an animal experiment, in 3 months and with their reputations on the line not a single person could be found
see vernoncoleman. com/challenge4.htm
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine If you can't see/understand all of the benefits that animal testing provides, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. It is what it is, animal testing is here to stay.
trokulop 11 months ago
@trokulop you have not been able to provide me with one benefit which stands up to scrutiny but i am certainly happy to invite you again to do so now
noratmedicine 11 months ago
To say that human medicine cannot be reliably based on mice, dogs, monkeys or any other species is actually the conservative position based on common sense and evidence. It is presented as the opposite to the public, that is not an accident
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine "But there is not point in using the biological system of another species as it is not predictive for humans " => but that's where you're wrong tho. Low prediction is only talked in terms of predicting phenotypic effects, say the outcome of a drug. But if you're talking about usefulness of what we learn in terms of biology, I have already given you so many examples in the past (i.e. Hox genes, PcG, existence of microRNA, CpG methylation...)
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Any cures? Humans have 30,000 diseases to choose from
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine I'm not talking about cures. I'm talking about establishing gene function here, because you gotta know what's happening inside a cell before you can design any drug. My claim is that with the help of animal models, you can deduce a function of a gene faster than without. Are you saying you agree with that statement then?
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr 200 million plus animals a year used in experiments and no cures, that is significant. Re gene function, animals are still not predictive, they may or may not be correct, you know that examples where what is true in mice and in humasn are arrived at retrospectively. I dont think there are any cases in which the best way to eliminate a human illness is via animal experiments, whether it is ethical to do certain things to huamns is an aside as that is not required to remedy problem
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine No there are cures, they're just not based on animal testing. But those drugs are designed based on our knowledge gathered from study of both animal + human + computational models. I'm not saying every mouse gene shares a function with every gene in human, but the Mouse Genome Consortium in 2002 did a genome-wide study of mouse and find that over 80% of the mouse genes are likely to share a function with human genes, and that's a lot.
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Thanks, id think that the mouse genome consortium would want to suggest that their work was valuable as i know it is very time consuming and therefore expensive. Mouse models are not curing human diseases and that will always be the bottom line.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine well you can always use that argument for any research that supports animal models (i.e. blame that the source is biased), and I could use the same argument to criticize any scientists who are against animal models...but i agree mouse models are not for curing diseases, at least not directly. they are for boosting our understanding of human biology, which is the first step before one can design any drug. I agree the actual drug testing part should ideally be done in humans
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Much evidence has been provided to show that claims made in support of AE have been wrong and the poeple providing that evidence are often speaking against their own interests. Microdosing (for drug testing) does not require animals and is more accurate than animal testing. Others can be found at drugtestingconference. com
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine I am interested to know how you feel about using animals to study biology in general tho. You constantly refer to how microdosing or population-wide studies give better drug testing results, but I'm not talking about drug testing now. Earlier I claim that using animal models help us understand more about biology in general, without necessary direct relation to drug design. Do you agree with that?
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Thanks. While I do not deny that there are similarities identified retrospectively i still feel that other species have little value predictively. Some basic similarities exist but only a small difference between species can make a therapy or procedure effective in one species ineffective or even harmful in another. I'm just saying that for practical purposes animal exp. is not achieving what it promises or claims to have achieved historically
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Well, I respect your opinion, but many of the findings done in animal models or plants have been awarded Nobel prizes (ex. microRNA). Obviously the scientific community has agreed those researches deserve recognition, whether the contribution is for medical field or others. So I feel your phrase "other species have little value" may need to be refined, especially if we are talking about broader areas that go beyond simply human medicine.
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr There have also been petitions to the board which gives the nobel prize saying that someone else should have won the nobel prize, this has happenned more than once. Nobel prizes are not given by the scientific community. As no animal is predictive for humans no advancement to humans can be a direct result of an animal experiment.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
In the instances wherein animals were used for the Nobel Prize-winning results, they were not necessary.
Though animal tissue research was the convention, human tissue was available and more viable - as many Nobel Prize winners have since remarked. The discovery of the DNA double helix, arguably the 20th Century's most important medical breakthrough, would have been impossible without the non-animal methods of technology and in vitro research.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine An example following my thoughts would be imagine we don't test on animals. Then this means the discovery of microRNA is delayed. Of course scientists would most likely discover microRNA in humans later, but how much is the delay going to be? 1 year? 5 year? 10? 20? You can argue the delay is worth the wait, considering the animals lives saved, but another person can easily say no the delay is not worth it, and that even 1 year is bad.
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Considering that very little funding goes into 'alternatives' we can only speculate about what would have happenned if things were more balanced in this way
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine That's true. But until the alternatives are more mature and can fully replace animal studies, we shouldn't stop animal testing. I've already said that many computational modelings require knowledge of other animal to make better predictions in humans. And human in vitro testing has its own faults that make it not able to fully replace animal in vivo studies (it does complement it tho, that i agree). And stem cell research right now is still like a science fiction...
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Re 'alternatives"... “Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Casshyr ...So the methods we propose for medical research should be called ‘scientific methods’… they are not ‘alternatives’."
- Prof. Pietro Croce M.D, Fulbright Scholar, Vivisection or Science: A Choice to Make, page 21.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Thanks for the quote. I am familiar with Dr. Pietro Croce. He actually is not denying studying biology on animal models tho. He is mainly only against testing drugs on animals, which I partially agree as well. My main concern is people are often blurring between using animals to design drugs, and using animals to study basic biology. More scientists are against the first, but only a few are opposed to the latter.
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Considering that his book is called "Vivisection or Science? A Choice to make" and after having read it myself I can say that he is opposed to all animal experimentation. I will agree that it is more tenable to study basic biology via animals than it is to claim predictiveness for humans such as drug studies
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Casshyr @Casshyr
Didn't all Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Physiology experiment on animals?
Yes, most did. But it doesn't follow that the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and accessible.
From the second half of the 19th century onward, experimenting on animals became part of all medical curricula. Therefore researchers were obliged to perform animal experiments to earn their degrees.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Casshyr the quotes and reference provided indicate that this is certainly not just my opinion.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine "But it doesn't follow that the discoveries would not have occurred without animals. It only means that the market for lab animals was thriving and accessible." => that's one way to interpret it. Another way is to say that this means experimenting with animals do produce good results. An example I've already given is the discovery of microRNA in worms. Obviously one could also have discovered microRNA in humans, but you can't deny studying animals have produced good results
Casshyr 11 months ago
@noratmedicine To give you a more perspective example, imagine I give you a DNA sequence that encodes for a gene, called it gene X. And I ask you: what does this gene do in your body? How would you go about doing it? You can try computational modeling, which in the end, is only an educated guess. Or you can try tissue culture, which can only give you a rough functional categorization at the tissue level. Or you can do animal model, and hope that human gene X shares high homology to mouse's X
Casshyr 11 months ago
@noratmedicine There's plenty of evidence, just google "Pro's of Animal Testing". That'll lead you in the right direction...
trokulop 11 months ago
@trokulop This does not provide evidence only claims. These are based on a fallacious form of argument known as 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' ie after that therefore because of that. This suggests that a causal rel. exists between two things simply because one occurred after the other. That is not evidence. Perhaps you can tell me the top 5 things you are sure were the result of animal experiments and i will reply to thise claims
noratmedicine 11 months ago
I can't believe this. God put people on this earth right? Well if we where put on here to LIVE and If the animals where also put on this earth then does't that mean so where they??!!
MsPandababe 1 year ago
hey all 116 people who don't have souls listen me if you children got used things like this then u wasent so happy arent you?
MrJoukkeli123 1 year ago
hey all 116 people who don't have souls listen me if you children got used things like this
MrJoukkeli123 1 year ago
@graciacb Ohh Cha, you'd be surprised how much medical and scientific advancements rely on animal testing.
trokulop 1 year ago
@trokulop Surprise me, tell me some.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
activists often say we can replace animal testing with computational models. But this is not always true. There are many computational models that use evolution conservation, which means it requires both knowledge of human biology as well as biology of related species, such as a mouse. Such programs thus require animal research to generate input data for those models. Hence, animal testing and computational models are not exclusive, they complement each other!
Casshyr 1 year ago
@Casshyr Firstly computer models are not the only 'alternative', secondly the animal 'tests' do not work anyway, ie they are not predictive for humans. see curedisease. net or drugtestingconference. com These computer models do not require animal tests as they are not medels for mice, they imitate the human body and are usually used with human cells and micro dosing mass spectrometry may also be used. This combination is far superior to animal 'tests' which are a legal, not a scientific device
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Not entirely correct: many computer models require knowledge of pathways in other animal system besides human to make accurate inferences. I've already mentioned methods that use evolutionary models. This ties in with the whole concept of using homologs from say a mouse to make better predictions about what's happening inside a human body. I know this cuz this is my field lol, so trust me when I say computer models and animal in vivo models are not mutually exclusive
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr Can only advise that you compare results from microdosing with animal tests. also the human genome would have to be more enlightening in regard to humans than the mouse or other genome. identical must be better than similar.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Also, you keep mentioning drug testing. But animal models aren't just for drug testing. A large part is for studying underlying biological pathways. You can't design a drug without knowing which pathway, which enzyme, to target on. This is why basic research is so important. MS is good, but you can't do perturbation studies on humans. For example, if you want to know what happens phenotypically if you knock out MAPK pathway, you can't do that on humans.
Casshyr 11 months ago
@Casshyr The bottome line will always be does it result in a cure? in this regard animal models have not succeeded, we hear many claims about why this or that is very promising etc based on mice models or others but we do not hear of a cure.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine but animal studies are generally not meant to replace human drug testing (some may disagree me on this point), but I think it is safe to say that the primary purpose of animal model is to study biological pathways, rather than testing drug effects. So if your argument is "we should stop testing human drugs on animals", fine. But if you are arguing that "we should stop all animal research entirely", then I disagree.
Casshyr 11 months ago
we should stop cruelty on dogs and horses, these animals really are our friends, and I'm sure they feel the same way about us. primates on the other hand, have some ability of reasoning, so we could show some respect to them too. but as far as other mammos go, I don't think we should feel so guilty. as for non-mammos, do these animals even have feelings?
salex2500 1 year ago
@salex2500 why only dogs and horses?
Dooooodle 1 year ago
@Dooooodle they seem to be our friends, "out of the box", especially dogs. most other animals simply fear us.
salex2500 1 year ago
BLESS THIS EXPERIMENTS, LET THOSE FUCKING ANIMAL LOVERS DIE WHILE WE GET THE MEDICATION TRU THESE EXPERIMENTS.
rtc5196 1 year ago
@rtc5196 I'd appreciate it if you stated your opinion in a more mature manner. Instead of deciding just because you dont agree, that my opinion is wrong, why dont you try and look at it from my point of view instead. And why watch something you know you wont agree with just to start an argument -_-
xxpunkXpersonxx 1 year ago
@rtc5196 Look up soviet animal tests and then tell me if u still agree for its one thing to give a mouse a common cold and inject it with something that definately wont kill or harm it and its another thing to cut off a dogs head to see its reflexes just on pure curiousity
TheaBrAmSoN 1 year ago
@TheaBrAmSoN Also giving mice a cold won't help us anyway. 200 million animals killed in 'experiments' each year and no disease cured.
"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans." Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6. 1998
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine no disease cured, but at least the diseases are being held and kept away from wiping out mankind. And by the way, they have already started using other methods:
"Two NIH institutes will work with the EPA to use the NIH Chemical Genomics Center's (NCGC) high-speed, automated screening robots to test compounds researchers suspect are toxic. The robots, created for the human genome project, could perform 10,000 cell screenings, using isolated molecular targets, each day"
Cherrs!
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Im pleased about the quote you have oprovided thats good news. please dont be duped into believing that diseases are being kept at bay by animal experiments. virtually all of the enviro pollutants, carcinogens etc have been tested on animals, this is a cause of disease but not a cure
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine well, i thank god that those tests are being made on animals (i do believe that they do not deserve that) instead of humans beings... However, animal test has provide a wide variety of important findings. Those animals that died during the experiments did not die in vain. I do agree with you that this seems to be brutal and inhuman. Actually i have to write a persuasive essay about this issue and thanks to you i got good ideas. Animals don't deserve this for sure!
Cheers!
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco I didnt say it was brutal and inhuman i said it was not curing human disease or benefitting humans. Seems like you have made your mind up I can only advise that you see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org nzavs. org. nz vivisectionresearch. ca for a start.
Please tell me say 5 of the most important things you say came from animal experiments and i will reply to that with evidence and expert opinion
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine im not going to tell you the 5 important things that came from animal testings (at least not now) .. but i can quote something that i'd love you to reply with evidence and expert opinion.
"Humans are clearly unique amongst animals in our abilities and intellect. Animals do not experience pain and emotion in the same way that we do because they lack language and the power of abstract thought"...
So, what do you thing? Remember we are here to debate not to fight.. :) Cheers!
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco My feeling about this quote is that its irrelevant and the sort of thing used to distract from the issue which is that humans med cant be based on rats, dogs, cats etc. Personally i do think animals may be smarter and feel more emotions and certainly feel pain, but that is a very different issue. If you are referring to peter singer in your essay you may want to google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby"
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco This relates to the valid anti animal exp. position (ie the scientific human health pos. not the animal rights one, though i clearly see that it violates their rights in the extreme) in that all species are different and that is precisely why medicine for one species cannot be based on another. agian, curedisease. net mrmcmed. org etc are good sites, should give them to you teacher so he learns something too, no douibt will think its a philosophical issue otherwise
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Regarding accuracy of animal 'tests', you may want to include stats liek these in your essay...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. That is a 97.5% failure rate.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco 1987
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
"...there is no ideal animal model to extrapolate teratogenicity results to human exposure because of species sensitivity and species difference. Dr Lin, In Vitro Toxicology, vol 1
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco its good to see that even their own textbook gets it right sometimes..."Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans." Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press).1994
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Thanks for you informative replays, i will look up about Ajundem-nos! ...just a couple of questions, do you blame scientists or politicians? cause remember, some countries require scientists to test their products on animals, scientists have no choice. Regarding religious, i not gonna ask you if you believe in god or not, but what would you say about bible saying that animals have being created to serve humans in any means? This may be use as defense for many people! Thx Cherrs
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Thanks, and thansk for caring about this issue, a most well hidden and misrepresented one. Blame is firstly with drug, chem, tobacco etc co's and industries whose products do ahrm humans, they derive legal protection from the misleading results, no payouts for thalidomide, warniongs kept off cigarette packs for 10 years etc. govt is also resp. and are connected to these industries, scientists whose careers are based on animal exp will also defend them to the end. c curedisease. net
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Thank you! I see that you strongly (if not strongly, intensely) disagree with the allowance of animal testing. I have to admit, i do believe that animal testing is necessary in a certain way, i mean aren't they the same animals we kill with poison to get them out of our streets or our house? how many chickens are being killed just for consumption? We need to find a better way to end their lives. Now this may sound pathetic and inhuman but you know it's true [...]
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Thanks. You seem to be convinced that humans benefit from animal experiments, a great deal has been done to convince the public that this is true and i also believed it once. I can only advise that you look at the sites ive suggested for a start. As we do not benefit from animal exp. but are in fact harmed by substances which pass them and as animal based research consistently fails to cure human illness i cannot agree. there is nothing to weigh up, thats is the essential diff.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Yes i will definitely look at them! i respect your opinion and hope we (people) can find a solution for this.! have a nice day!
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco I'll be back tomorrow. If you still think we benefit from animal exp. after looking at those sites you can tell me in what way and ill reply tomorrow...using the library computer. re mice..." Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice.[23] ...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco ...If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong....
noratmedicine 11 months 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.[25]
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco 25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4."
So you see the fact that we poison mice anyway is irrelevant as we are not benefitting from using them in research. Even primates are not predictive for humans
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco 25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4."
As mice and rats are not even predictive for each other let alone humans there is nothing to weigh up, we dont benefit.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine [...] people use the same shampoo that has been tested on animals (do not tell me you don't wash you hair cause im not gonnga believe you), the same anesthetics doctors used has been tested on animals, now here is the thing.. just because 95% of the tests are useless to humans that does not mean the following tests are going to be wrong too. Unfortunately we don't have the enough technology to replace animals with robots or any other machine [...]
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Firstly, there are many non animal tested products and they are healthier for humans... re. 95% wrong, as it is never possible to know which ones were right until after the fact that does not mean that 5% of tests are useful/necessary/vital etc. We do have real scientific methods, can only advise again that you see curedisease. net The living system of another species is not useful as it is not predictive.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco re these 'tests'...# "As an ophthalmologist in the New York University I am surprised that the Draize eye irritation test is done at all... I know of no case in which an ophthalmologist found Draize data useful."
(Stephen Kaufman, M.D., New York.)
# "The results of these tests are of no use to physicians."
(Sandra Davies, M.D., Columbia, Maryland.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "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 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco # "The results of these (animal) tests cannot be used to predict toxicity or to guide therapy in human exposure."
(Christopher D. Smith, M.D., Longbeach, California.)
# "The data produced by these tests don't keep harmful products from being sold."
(Ellen Michael, M.D., Beverley Shores, Indiana.)
the evidence supports these opinions
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco take it from the US national cancer institute after 25 years of failure with mice. human cell culture is better as it is correct for humans. cn be followed with mass spectrometry, computer models and micro dosing in humans (for drugs)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco 'lethal laws' by alix fano is a good book on toxicology testing or see vivisectionresearch. ca/davoudia. htm (remove spaces)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine [...]"The most radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy, etc., have all been made possible by animal research.." I wish i can quote all my sources but i can't for now. I love this kind of debates because we learn from each other, once again thanks for your time and god bless you.
Cheers!
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco i can provide quotes countering these but then we'll just be like spectators at a tennis game. one must consider who is making the quote, if it is supported by evidence, and if others who also benefit from animal experiments contradict this viewpoint. This can be a time consuming issue to investigate thoroughly. I suggest you start with the major claims made in support of animal exp. and then see what sites like curedisease. net have to say in response
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Sorry for delay. ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
Found to increase the risk of blood-clots leading to heart attacks, lung disorders and strokes. By 1980 over 400 deaths reported.
"Not only had the animal tests failed to identify the hazard, but in rats and dogs oral contraceptives produced entirely the opposite effect, making it more difficult for the blood to clot."
(Z. Bankowski and N. Howard-Jones, Biomedical Research Involving Animals.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco IVF [did have] only an approximate 10% success rate. In other words, it has a 90% failure rate! (1) 1. Robyn Rowland, Living Laboratories - Women and Reproductive Technologies, Sun, Australia, 1992.
Not sure what the success rate is now but if it has improved it will be as always through trial and error in humans as it has been performed many thousands of times now.
not sure of its origins but i doubt that a causal rel. between AE and any benefit to humans would exist
noratmedicine 11 months ago
re hormone replacement therapy (HRT) Pro-Test also complained about a statement on the leaflet by EMP Trust that: Hormone replacement therapy increases women's risk of heart disease and stroke. Millions of prescriptions were based on monkey data, which predicted the opposite.
Pro-Test claimed that HRT was not prescribed on the basis of monkey data but EMP Trust provided abundant evidence to show that it was...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco ...The ASA's draft recommendation was to reject this complaint as well - at which point Pro-Test decided to withdraw the complaint."
More re HRT...Hormone Replacement Therapy – prescribed to millions of women, and thought to protect against heart
disease and stroke on the basis of NHP experiments, HRT is now known to increase the risk of these
diseases, as well as breast cancer in humans...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "...The Chairman of the German Commission on the Safety of
Medicines described HRT as 'the new Thalidomide.' It has caused up to 20,000 cases of breast cancer over
the past decade in Britain alone."
Gray S. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy: the Million Women Study. Lancet. 2003 Oct 18;362(9392):1332.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco As you can see from quotes given the animal 'tested' procedure (even in primates) is harmful/lethal to many humans and trial and error in humans is what improves it. A causal rather than a casual rel. between any human benefit is not shown, the post hoc fallacy referred to earlier is relied on by supporters ov AE along with other fallacious forms of argument.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine Well, it's nice to hear about you again... I talked to my professor about this issue and what I was doing to improve my knowledge about the topic... Firstly, he said that this is a very problematic issue due to the exchange of arguments between the two parts, it's like you said .. like a tennis game. Then he said that even though many people believe that this is a very unnecessary procedure, it has had many benefits in medical fields as well as in military defense [...]
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@noratmedicine according to a British website, it has many benefits you can go and check them out ( aboutanimaltesting. co. uk ) you can also check out this website which has many, many information about it:
adelaide. edu. au / ANZCCART / humane / benefit. html (without the spaces of course)
So what do you think?
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco This site, whose purpose is to support animal tests again does not provide evidence to support such claims. As can be seen from the claims about IVF, oral contraceptives etc the truth is quite different. The main argument device used is the post hoc fallacy. Any positive claim can be made this way as with over 200 million animals used a year there will always be some to (retrospectively) refer to. I'll find a link to show all fallacious forms of argument used...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco navs. org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_appendix for a full list and explanation of fallacious argument used. I would be happy to reply to specific claims made by your professor
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Oxford Uni's pro animal exp. claims and a response are here. This may save me trouble of going over same claims... speakcampaigns. org / sitepages . php ?a=8
relying on a prestigious name or title instead of providing evidence is a fallacious form of argument called an 'appeal to authority'
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Looked at that site but was just one lie or misinformation after another. if there is a particular claim i can reply to it
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine this is what i was talking about; you have nothing but hate against animal test. Professionally, You cannot argue something or defend your position with emotions, even though i believe that some of the reason you gave me before are partially true, you have not accepted any little fact about animal test being beneficial. When you write an argument, you have to list the pros and cons of the issue, but you, you would not discuss any benefit about it cause according to you, [...]
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco I will tell you concisely why and how the public is misled, you may call it a conspiracy theory if you like...drug/chem co's derive legal protection from misleading results from animal 'tests', they fund universities who do animal experiments, this provides them with employees and 'research' suitable to their ends, theya re major advertisers and inditrect owners of much media, they pay and promote philosophers like peter singer and 'donate' to political parties, they make fake...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco ...anti vivisection groups and sites and infiltrate valid ones and uni's produce philosophers who peddle singers moral philosophy so the token or fake opponents are elevated to academics who take it as a given fact (without evidence) that humans benefit from AE. Other factors are gaining titles, getting published, income, status, inertia, lack of training in real scientific methods (usually called 'alternatives')
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco Some direct quotes from the site you referred me to..."Animal Testing Breakthroughs
An enormous breakthrough came in 1922 when animal testing allowed for insulin to be isolated from dogs..."
What actually happenned...Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing, asserting that insulin harvested from slaughterhouses saved the lives of many diabetics. This is true....
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco ...But the use of animals in the search for the cause of diabetes has been overwhelmingly counterproductive...
Diabetes affects in excess of 125 million people worldwide and is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the pancreas' role in the disease..
noratmedicine 11 months ago
When they removed the pancreas from dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were claiming had proven the existence of insulin:
"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]
noratmedicine 11 months ago
They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had isolated insulin.
Scientists later modified the in vitro process they had used to isolate insulin, successfully mass-producing pig and cattle insulin reaped in slaughterhouses. This animal-derived insulin indeed saved lives, but not without complications. It also created allergic reactions and exposed patients to serious health risks...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco ...
"There is no laboratory method of inducing diabetes... which is exactly comparable to the clinical condition. At best we can get only crude approximations. The dangers of arguing from one species to another, or even from one strain to another of the same species are certainly not to be neglected."
(Dr F.G. Young, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London, Lancet, December 18 1948, pages 955-956.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "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: 1. an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and 2. the detrimental effect of improper diet."
(Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco
# "The causes of diabetes mellitus remains unknown in both man and animals. In spite of certain species similarities, there are a number of important differences - differences in clinical manifestation, in aetological factors and in the liability to certain long-term complications of the disease."
(Dr Harry Keen, BSc, M.R.C.P., "Spontaneous Diabetes in Man and Animals", Veterinary Record, July 9 1960, page 557.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco # "Arguments based on the insulin requirements of the depancreatised dog and cat applied to human diabetes are quantitatively dangerous."
(Dr F. G. Young, D.Sc., PhD., F.R.S., British Medical Journal, November 17 1951, pages 1167-1168.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "At the CIBA Foundation, London, on 3 July, Prof. Houssay reviewed his group's work on the influence of sex hormones on the incidence and severity of experimental diabetes in the rat: but first warned his audience not to accept the results for other animals or for humans."
(Lancet, July 14 1951, page 70.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "Dr Banting, Canada's medical hero, who is popular and erroneously credited with the discovery of insulin by extirpating the pancreases of thousands of dogs, did not cause diabetes, but stress."
(J.A. Pratt, "A Reappraisal of Research Leading to the Discovery of Insulin", Journal of the History of Medicine, Vol. 9, 1954, pages 281-289.)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco "The more we study diabetes, the more we discover the contradictory aspects of this malady. Fifty years ago, when insulin was discovered, we thought the mystery of diabetes had been resolved. But now the mystery keeps getting more mysterious."
(Ulrico de Aichelburg, writing in the authoritative Italian magazine EPOCA, September 21 1974.)
50 years and millions of animals later, still no cure
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco as you see from quotes re insulin the claims are not supported by evidence. could do same for all other claims. best if you tell me some as it is too time consuming to go over every claim. this site relies on the publics lack of knowledge and a belief that we benefitr from animal exp. again i am happy to reply to any claim, some hav ealready been covered (cosmetics, drug testing etc)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine there is no benefit on doing thoses tests. Nevertheless, I am interested on further responses about this issue. Why am I saying this? Because when you try to point or prove a point, the most difficult is for you to defend your position, the stronger is your argument. However, you said that there is no benefit on it, thus saying that there is nothing to argue about. Where is the argument then? Best Wishes
G.
Pepsimaniaco 11 months ago
@Pepsimaniaco The arguemnt is that other people are certainly saying that there is benefit and the oppsition being presneted to the public is an animal rights one rather than a human health one. in other words the public is misled on this issue. If you want to write about this issue you show the claimed benefits, why theya re not true, why those claims are made
noratmedicine 11 months ago
I feel so bad for the rabbits especially... x(
But a lot of those pictures weren't animal testing.. like the ones of the dogs..
But anyway. I feel bad for them, but I think that animal testing is sometimes necessary to make things safer for humans. Unless YOU want to volunteer to be a test subject. -__-
I do however, firmly believe that animals being tested should be treated better. D:< because some of that shit is just WRONG. and abusive.
TheCrayolaSkies 1 year ago
@TheCrayolaSkies Actually that is not the choice, as the animal is not predictive for humans we are harmed by animal 'tested' substances, virtually all carcinogens, teratogens, pollutants, drugs even tobacco is tested on animals. this provides legal protection to industry but no physical protection to us. If you want to see how drugs should be tested see drugtestingconference. com or curedisease. net for a start
noratmedicine 11 months ago
animal experiments are pointless fat companys make millions each year at the expence of animal suffering animals cant speak out so its the job of careing human beings to speak on the behalf of these innocent victims born to die in pointless experiments.
busterbrown1967 1 year ago
If scientists feel that a drug will be safer for humans if it is tested first on animals, then I would support animal testing. If people are against animal testing then would they be happy for their child to be prescribed a new drug that has not been tested as thoroughly as it could have been?
nnmk001 1 year ago
@nnmk001 don't use children to try and guilt trip people please
xxpunkXpersonxx 1 year ago
@xxpunkXpersonxx then don't deny the reality of the situation, respectfully
BoyofDestiny108 11 months ago
@nnmk001 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" As the animal 'tests' are wrong 92% of the time it is hard to imagine how we benefit from them. Pharmaceutical side effects are the fourth biggest killer in the western world and they all pass animal 'tests'. see curedisease. net
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@nnmk001 a knowledgeable person would realise that as their child is not a rat or a dog then 'testing' on those species would not help their child. see drugtestingconference. com for valid testing methods such as microdosing
noratmedicine 11 months ago
Animal testing is actually beneficial to both humans and animals. Read about it, It's quite interesting.
trokulop 1 year ago
@trokulop i shall, i haven't looked into it for a long time, this was made ages ago lol
xxpunkXpersonxx 1 year ago