re: Another Look at Animal Testing

[JollSSteR]

you do know that they had to test this on humans after they test it on animals anyways, so its extremely stupid

[JollSSteR]

Medical research on animals gives us absolutely 0 understanding of how that medicin will effect us, animal testing is not science, its an insult to the human race and its only purpose is to make non human animals suffer and get absolutely nothing back for it.

it has taught us all we need to know now stop it!

[sapperbloggs]

@JollSSteR

"Medical research on animals gives us absolutely 0 understanding"

Of course... they just test drugs on animals for laughs... don't they?

"it has taught us all we need to know"

You just said that it has taught us nothing. Now you're saying it has taught us something? I bet if you (or your parent/siblinb/spouse/child) were dying of something, you'd be pretty happy for some animal testing to occur to find a cure.

[JollSSteR]

@sapperbloggs yeah i contridicted myself badly didnt i..

well since we have stem cell research there are alternative to this sht.

and no, i wouldnt want to cure myself if i had to inject something into an animal, but i would want to cure myself from medicin that has already been tested on animals.

( i dont want it to be a direct result of me )

and besides, virus evolves with medicines help so i would only fck things up for the next generation :P

[sapperbloggs]

@JollSSteR

How does one test the efficacy of cancer treatment using stem cells? Cancer is cancer, regardless of what animal it's in. Why not test treatments in rodents?

I inject a drug 3 times a week to treat MS, that was tested on (and is made from) animals.

Virus' don't evolve because of medicine... bacteria evolves because of antibiotics (a narrow section of medicine). Virus' are eradicated completely by immunizations... which are tested on animals (see - smallpox)

[JollSSteR]

@sapperbloggs Yeah sure it works with animal testing in the long run, but why dont you care about all the times it fails?

it almost never works or els we would have saulved as many problems are animals that were killed, sure this guy counts up like 30 things this has saulved, but thats nothing compared to how many animals have died and suffered their entire lives.

virus evolves mate, or els the immune defence wouldnt have a problem with them since they wouldve been as they were 3billio y ago

[NinjaGhostScorpion]

Sure, it's sad, but if we don't have that life-saving medicine, innocent people will die. And for what? So animals can run free? We're not living in a Disney world where deer and rabbits and skunks romp and frolic, doing all sorts of cutesy-pukesy things. No, the world, as we know it, is much more real, and much more tragic.

[nomonkeymedforhumans]

Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:

"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."

curedisese. net

[cultfighter]

DustinJolly loves to eat CasperCee's meatstick

[kounno]

thx you for the info

so far I have done alot of research on this issue over the past month.

I came across an artical in scientific america and a few helpful videos along with many more areicals on 3Rs (replacement, refinement, and reduction) and much more

[kounno]

please tell me where to get this information Im doing a pro research speech in class this week

[sapperbloggs]

Article is titled 'WARNING: Animal Extremists are Dangerous to your Health', by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker.

It was published in the skeptical inquirer in May/June 2008. You might be able to track it down with google or google scholar. If not, PM me your email address, and I'll email you a copy of the PDF I have of that article

[Glendale1835]

Hundreds of thousands of people each year get hospitalised due to affects from products tested on animals. It is old and outdated, Thousands of scientists around the world say animal testing is pointless as animals respond to things differently to humans, Its pretty much common sense!!. They continue though because its the fastest way to get products on the shelf and the best way to make fast money. Also testing on animals it acts like insurance for the labs when humans go ill

[FreedomForOrcas]

Animals react differently to drugs than humans - the results they give from testing cannot be accurately applied to humans. And besides, everything tested on animals must go through human trials before it can be released onto the "world stage" so to speak. So animals dying in medical research is really just a waste of life.

And besides, I honestly don't think throwing chemicals in rabbits eyes to see how much it burns can be called "research".

[sapperbloggs]

Ah, so all the succesful reasearch based on animal testing was only a fluke. No useful infomation was gained, ever.

You don't think that perhaps those doing medical testing realise there are differences between humans and animals?

My MS medication is not only a result of animal testing, it's made from animals (chinese hamster ovaries)... you're suggesting 'bad luck' for me, I should suffer a degenerative auto-immune illness because of animal rights? Really?

[FreedomForOrcas]

I understand where you're coming from, however unfortunately not every animal has the "benefit" of a knowledgeable scientist. Yes, unfortunately, approximately 10-15 million animals die in possibly the most agonising tests in the world, including injections of diseases they would not normally contract, putting burning chemicals in their eyes, submitting animals to electric shocks, blood withdrawals, spinal taps, transplants - all without pain killers...

[FreedomForOrcas]

... and whilst there are a small minority of animals that have more "benefits" than other lab animals, the issue is still there - should animals suffer for humans?

Animals were not made for us. They are in this world for their own reasons, and we as humans do not have the right to forsake their basic freedoms, such as freedom from pain, freedom of movement, freedom to interact with other animals....

[FreedomForOrcas]

... the simple truth is there - animals will always suffer in labs. No matter how well you can treat them, animals will always suffer.

Many animals will never see the sun, never breathe the outside air, animals such as dogs and cats will never experience the love and care of someone else, and those such as monkeys will never interact with members of their own species.

It is only isolation and deprivation...

[FreedomForOrcas]

... Yes, I said humans have no right to use animals as objects, but we do it anyway. I just hope that one day humans will see we aren't the only animals on the planet, and this world is to be shared with others.

And by the way, there are alternatives to animal research, such as stem cell research, which is by far more accurate.

[Shukes2]

No there aren't any alternatives to animal research an alternative would be able to replace it. What there are are complementary methods which can be used to reduce the number of animals we need to use. Stem cell research doesn't really apply to animal research as an alternate or complementary methods.

[FreethinkingJim]

I suggest you research stem cell research first. Stem cell research has the ability to replace any limb on the human body, bone muscle and flesh. I guarantee it can also replace disease testing and bio-warfare testing as well.

[Shukes2]

Where did you get your figure of animals used? Also describing what may or may be used in an experiment tells us nothing of what the research is about it's an attempt to tug on heart strings without making any argument at all

[idiotech93]

Yea sapper, people don't understand unless they are in a situation like yours. Having Panic Disorder taught me a few things about what I would and would not do when pushed.

Best of luck with the MS I had no Idea.

[FreethinkingJim]

I suggest if you want a full-blown cure for your illness then you should try to have stem cell research legalized.

[sapperbloggs]

Stem cell research IS legalized in my country.

Stem cell research wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the discovery of the type of medication I use. Because of this medication, I now have ~60% chance of reduced progression of the illness, and ~30% chance of completely stopping the progression. So far, it looks like I'm in the 30% group.

While stem-cell research is the most promising for a cure, it's not the only alternative

[FreethinkingJim]

fetus' don't even have the same level of pain sensory as a living animal. Furthermore like I said, any kind of testing would go to habitual murderers and rapists and terrorists. the results would be accurate, no-bodies and no-good-doers would also fulfill their place in society as opposed to rotting in jail. Do you think your value on human life is instinctive or your own personal belief?

[sapperbloggs]

A fetus does not have the same (or even similar) biology to a living mammal. It's kind of hard to test the lungs/digestive-tract/eyes/hea­ring etc. on something that doesn't have these traits. And by the time it does have these traits, it also has the same pain receptor ability as any other animal.

The value I place on human life is based on a human's awareness of both its own existence, and its own mortality... which is why I'd sooner test on a dog, than a prisoner

[FreethinkingJim]

I'm not saying animal lives are better than a humans, but a beagle who can be a recovery companion (for the elderly or sick) is a much less detrimental entity than a terrorist or habitual murderer or rapist. My mom was raped, so yeah I feel strongly about that and the more I see society the more I love nature and animals than I do us humans who wish to exploit it when both (non-human animals and nature) only wish to exist and be happy.

[sapperbloggs]

You're assuming that absolutely everybody who is found guilty by whatever legal system, is actually guilty. It's one thing to spend 20 years in prison for something you didn't do. It's another to die in a medical experiment for something you didn't do.

Using criminals for medical testing would only work if you could prove guilt without any doubt whatsoever.

[FreethinkingJim]

I can see where you come from to a degree in your thinking. they believe though that you can grow a limb through stem cells, and I doubt eyes, ear canals, etc would be far from that idea. I'm not saying you're wrong in loving man kind, but after doing some history of how we humans have treated animals (Niagara Falls, where they sent a boat full of them overboard for 'entertainment of 20,000 people, around 25 animals were on board and died). Humans suck. I hope we get wiped out though.

[sapperbloggs]

That is true, some parts can be completely reproduced by stem cells, and these parts would be ideal for both medical tests, and transplants.

They cannot grow a brain though. MS is when the immune system attacks the brain and spinal cord. You would have to create a brain AND a working immune system (so you'd need bone-marrow at the very least) to study MS... you may be able to grow a limb in a petri dish with stem cells... but you can't grow entire functioning organism there

[FreethinkingJim]

You'd complain if aliens used you or your loved ones for testing of any kind.

[sapperbloggs]

'You'd complain if aliens used you or your loved ones for testing of any kind'

Yes, I imagine I would. In fact, I think I'd complain more if my parents were used by aliens in a medical experiment, than my dog would if it's parents were used in a medical experiment.

And when you realize WHY humans would complain more than animals, you're on the way to realizing why animals are used more than humans

[FreethinkingJim]

Actually many animals die of grief because of lost loved ones. I suggest you watch this when you have the time. It shows that dogs though not intelligence wise are on the level of a 3 year old human or so in cognition, and emotion, and pretty much all human qualities.

[sapperbloggs]

Yes and no... dogs are equal to human children on many qualities. On others they surpass humans.

But on the whole, a dog is not a human.

They are not aware of their own existence, or of their own mortality. They (like many animals) do experience grief... but they usually function a lot better than a 3 year old does when you remove the primary caregiver for an extended period.

[FreethinkingJim]

Eh. They know they exist, just not they can NOT exist. :\

I'm sorry for your MS. I hope you get better. The thing is is that animal cognition is something I'm interested in and hopefully (somehow, perhaps by selective breeding) can at least make companion animals vocal and as cognitive as us. That would only be fair. We have a pie in our noggins. Wouldn't it be wrong not to share it? We haven't seen alien life so far so why not help beings become on par with us here at home?

[sapperbloggs]

Animal cognition is based largely on the size (and complexity) of the brain. If you want examples of animals that are extremely intelligent, I'd be using chimps (2nd only to humans in intelligence)... rather than dogs.

While chimps ARE used for medical testing (they're very biologically compatible with humans), rats are mainly used, as well as pigs, who share many biological traits with humans (and are lower on the intelligence spectrum than many other animals).

[FreethinkingJim]

well actually they are on the same level of intelligence too, never mind.

[sapperbloggs]

'they are on the same level of intelligence too'

As a 3rd year psych student, I'm forced to ask...

Exactly HOW was the intelligence of a dog measured and compared with that of a human child?

I can think of about a dozen tests that could be administered to a 3 year old... that a dog simply would not comprehend.

For that reason, I'm calling 'bullshit' on your claim... unless of course you can provide some sort of evidence.

[FreethinkingJim]

Its in the documentary I sent you. there was a dog who learned about 350 words and could count up to 11.

[sapperbloggs]

You haven't sent me any documentaries.

If you're trying to send me a link in comments, it would be automatically blocked by YT (including links to YT videos). Try PMing the link, and I'll take a look at it.

But in the end... dogs aren't generally used for medical testing... the animals that are, are used either because of their reduced intelligence (rats), similar biology to humans (chimps), or both (pigs)

[FreethinkingJim]

well I'll send you the video in PM and it'll make you re-think dog cognition, because they are actually in many ways smarter than chimps and this BBC documentary explains how. I'm sorry if I rub you the wrong way. I just try to see things as an all loving God would, since there 'doesn't seem to be one'.

[sapperbloggs]

As someone who studies cognition (psychology), I'm very interested in documentaries on the topic.

I'm also someone who would be first to advocate any effective alternative to animal testing. But the reality is that right now, medicine has advanced to where it is at the cost of the lives of many many animals... but in doing so, has saved the lives of at least as many people AND animals

[FreethinkingJim]

Also, do you think that animals should have to perform tasks like sniffing out land mines or (bio-warfare testing)?

[sapperbloggs]

Animals (dogs) do not sniff out landmines. The simplest reason for this is, they're not all that good at it, they cost too much to train, and they tend to set off landmines instead of finding them.

Though given three alternatives... 1. Humans removing them, 2. Animals locating them, and 3. Child stepping on one... I'd probably choose #2 as being the method least likely to cost human life.

If you want to know how to medically treat a bio-weapon attack... who do you practice on? Pigs, or humans?

[speakingofresearch]

Good work - animal research is crucial to the future of medical progress.

Our understanding of MS has been greatly aided by animal research - it's how we've learned which type of immune system cells make the attack on the nerve coating - helping us find ways of slowing this process.

It would be worth making the distinction between animal testing (safety testing) and animal research (all animal experiments including safety testing).

[KyoraMishiso]

Very nice.

Only your eyes...they look kind of like alien eyes o.o;'

[TheVeganicWitch]

Thanks for the new video, this one is much more relevant :-)

That is truly perculiar about the references, I'm going to look around to see if I can find any articles with different ones. I didn't get to reference checking with the MS one because it was just a quick search, although I have found the actual studies behind the treatment of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. I'm sorry if I led you up the garden path there, I didn't do it intentionally as I'm sure you would know :-/

[sapperbloggs]

Admittedly, I only looked at a handful of articles and chose this one, and there's a chance that the references do exist, just that they're referenced in that article very poorly, so it's hard to track them down.

Even if the references do exist, they're all over 30 years old, and at least one is grossly misrepresented.

Maybe I was unlucky and picked a particularly bad article when there are good ones out there

[TheVeganicWitch]

You'd think a doctor would be able to reference properly after all those years at uni LOL

I don't think a dietary study being 30 years old would be a problem, unless you are worried that vegetables or peoples physiology has changed that much? The misrepresentation is totally uncool though :-(

[sapperbloggs]

I think it would still be relevant, though something so relevant, wide reaching and apparently successful would surely have been researched within the past 30 years, if it was true.

I was surprised that an article that made such sweeping claims was unable to source info for more recent studies.

Though really, I haven't looked in detail far beyond this particular article, so I can't say the whole idea is flawed, simply that this article definately is

[TheVeganicWitch]

Hmmmm my father in law used to work in science (different field) and he said that the scientists often researched whatever was popular so they could get funding...no funding, no study.

But yeah, screw that article. I didn't like how he was talking about things being delicious. I mean vegan food is delicious (mine is anyway :-) ) but its not terribly scientific LOL

Anyhow, I personally think the animal testing issue is very complex. I really just want to get people thinking and talking about it

[TheVeganicWitch]

(cont)...If we can get majority opposition to all non medical, non 'crucial' testing (e.g. I don't think a faster acting asprin or a new cholesterol reducing drug should get on the list) I would consider that great progress. Gary Francione (animal rights lawyer and university professor) says we should focus on the dietary issues first because they are so simple and then move onto the more complex issues like animal testing later. I tend to agree. I think on these points we are in agreement???

[sapperbloggs]

I definately agree. Though the challenge is to be able to form a group able to judge what is relevant research and what is not, that is both well informed and unbiased. A group that isn't influenced by either animal rights groups OR pharmacutical companies.

Another idea would be a label system where ALL commercial products clearly identify if they use animal research at all would go a long way to reducing the prevalence of unnecesarry exploitation of animals

[TheVeganicWitch]

Great ideas. I think the labelling system would be easiest to implement and very effective. It would be soooo hard to select a panel to make these decisions, especially if you want them all to be informed and unbiased! Two qualities almost never found together in human beings LOL

[stupidrussia]

get a fucking job and back away from the computer! no body gives a fuck what you think!!!

[sapperbloggs]

stupidrussia, I work full time, AND study full time.

Though you seem to be going through my vids one by one, reiterating that you're a cock-head... what's your excuse?

'no body gives a fuck what you think'

177 subs isn't that much, comparitively speaking. But it's about 175 more than what you've got... retard

[TheVeganicWitch]

I've got a job and over 500 ppl give a fuck what I think, thank you ;-P

[TheVeganicWitch]

Whoops Sapper, accessed this comment from my emails and thought it was on my video, please delete it *blushes*

[nervousneuron]

There is such a committee, the ethics committee,which consists of five people, including a researcher, a vet, a member of an animal welfare org (Eg. RSPCA) and a lay person. They must approve a research proposal before it can get funding.

Most experiments include good animal welfare (no pain, no stress, natural behaviours, etc) but no animal rights (no freedom, killed after experiment). [cont]

[nervousneuron]

[cont] unfortunately, it's hard to determine what is valuable, because it isn't just one experiment that finds the answer, it's a collection of those that are seemly pointless (i.e 'academic'). Gotta know how something functions before we can fix the broken one.

Sapperbloggs, you're spot on about why researchers are scared. In my lab, there is a lot of talk about what happened to someone over in England, eg 'you can't even read a scientific paper on the train in England without harassment!'

[TheVeganicWitch]

I was intending something better then an ethics committee, something that actually contained people who could advocate on behalf of the animals, not the RSPCA. The RSPCA serve meat at their functions (in Australia anyway), they are not an animal advocacy organisation in any way shape or form. In many ways they represent the interests of the animal exploitation industries, and are staunchy anti animal rights/liberation.

[TheVeganicWitch]

BTW, I'm the person whose video Sapper was debating if you are wondering.

[FantasmaBAnco]

I'm the First Wanker! Woo-hoo! ; )

[sapperbloggs]

And you're my first ever 'first' commenter!

[FantasmaBAnco]

Double woo-hoo!

On a more serious note, I think everyone should be wary of arguments from "the greater good". Engaging in immoral acts, such as bombings and threats against the family members of animal researchers, does more harm than good to the animal liberation movement.

You're right; education is the key.

[sapperbloggs]

You're right... animal testing shouldn't just be given a free reign for 'the greater good'. At all times, the pros and cons need to be evaluated, and where possible, alternatives to animal testing must be used.

While I believe education is the key, the education must be unbiased... the video I'm responding to gives the worst cases for animal testing, without ever mentioning the legislation in animal testing to minimise cruelty, the benefits of testing or the actions of some animal rights groups

[TheVeganicWitch]

So right, the "greater good" is usually sought with violence O.o