Visitor:

Philosophy > Animal Testing

The Public's comments with regard to 2 published articles about animal testing. Second thread is on this page at the bottom. Both are in reverse chronological order. Posts in favor of vivisection are highlighted in green.


Anonymous: 2007-10-19 10:11:30

Quote: what would you rather sacrifice your pet monkey or the ones you love?
To be honest, the ones I love, they would die with honor, rather than kill an innocent animal for selfish means.

On another thing: You should not keep pets if you do not consider them as family, would you kill family for family?


Anonymous: 2007-10-19 03:29:49

all the people who support vivisection are a bunch of selfish a**holes who would have said the same "we are better & more important than them because the bible says so" sh*t about slavery, segregation, and the womans rights moviment years ago. times have changed, but alot of these ignorant minded people remain the same, jus changing their veiw to issues that the law is on its side.


Anonymous: 2007-10-19 01:11:05

i think that animal testing is one of the most horrible things that people could do to a poor animal...i think that the testing of prisoners on death row would be more useful because they are humans....worthless...but humans none the less and thy're gonna die anyway so lets give them something that they could feel good about because when they are tested on they are helping socity which is something that they had never done in the past


Anonymous: 2007-10-18 07:51:33

Please refer to earlier entries in response to the claim thqat we should use people on death row. all drugs are already tested on humans. 85% of drugs which apss animal tests fail in human trials (and even more later). we do not need to test on humans in this way, using cell cultures, micro dosing and genetically engineering drugs is the way forward. this is real science. the only cutting edge thing about animal experiments is the knives.


Anonymous: 2007-10-18 05:13:31

Animal testing is cruel and should be stopped.


Anonymous: 2007-10-18 01:48:08

It should be done on the people on death row. they committed a crime and are going to die, so why not test the drugs on them? they would be giving back to the community.


Anonymous: 2007-10-14 01:56:11

As has been said many times on this board, killing monkeys does not save humans. There is a 66% genetic correlation between humans and bananas, that should put dna in its place, it has little relevance to the ability to cure human disease or test substances for human consumption.

Monkeys...do not get aids when given hiv infected blood (this has resulted in human deaths), do not get malaria or hepatitis (killing millions of humans), can consume strychnine without ill effect, get polio via respiratory and not digestive system unlike humans, this delayed polio research by 29 years. In their natural environment they do not get any human disease. basing human medicine on monkeys has killed many humans and continues to. Basing it on other animals has been even more disastrous for humans.

Please read earlier entries before posting comments here.


Anonymous: 2007-10-13 10:31:16

i don't agree with animal testing
and
id do agree with animal testing

because ........

i don't ... i don't think it is fair on the animals because although they are animals ... it doesn't mean that they don't have feelings just as we do

i do ... i think it is good that there are many lives getting either saved or made longer becuse of this... what would you rather sacrifice your pet monkey or the ones you love ?


but i don't know which one i would definatly go for


RICHARD GRIFFIN: 2007-10-10 19:14:31

October 4, 2007 Richard Griffin

Togetherness


The government of Burma, I think, is being unjust to its people. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was kind to everybody? Then Burma could grow and flourish into a place of beauty instead of a place of destruction and death. Isn't it much more peaceful when people are kind to one another? The people employed by the army apparently can't see for themselves that what they are doing is destructive and unjust. Or do they simply take the word of a mad man? Doesn't their/your religion teach you/them/us compassion, love, peace, happiness, joy and that war and destruction leads to suffering? What religion truly believes in the annihilation of other human beings? Does anyone wish to be annihilated? Have we come all this way only to be caretakers of our own demise? By all this, I mean ever since our beginning with Evolution theory and the cave man, did we not all hunt together and share the warmth of a cave together? Could man have survived without brethren? If you believe the Adam and Eve theory, could one have survived without the other?
Theories are theories. Beliefs are beliefs. Facts are facts. A fact is something that has been proven. A belief is something thought to be true in the eyes of the believer. A theory has yet to become a fact. The fact is that if you kill someone you/they/us are gone, and until such time that you/us/we believe where they have gone becomes a fact. To hold a new born babe is to hold life. To kill is to see death. So you decide, is it better to live in peace or is it better to live in a place of death, anger, hate, and suffering? I, for one, believe that I would rather live in a world of love and compassion than in a world of death and destruction. History has a reputation, for proving that war is not the way to peace. If I know that that killing is wrong shouldn't everybody, and if they/you don't know why, maybe they/you should ask yourself/selves the question.

Richard Griffin
13686 94A Ave.
Surrey, B.C
V3V-1N1
Cell. No. (604) 806-0661
Richardgriffin28@hotmail.com


RICHARD GRIFFIN: 2007-10-10 19:08:19

Animal testing what did they do before,they tested on animals. How would people like it if animals teted on humans.What gives us the right to stick forign substances into animals.Half the time the side afects out weigh the benifits anyway.Animals have feelings as do we.Is it because they cant speak that we torture them.


Anonymous: 2007-10-09 06:28:42

Thanks, human cell culture and micro-dosing in humans are other more accurate means. they are not alternatives to animal experimentation because they give an accurate result, one applicable to humans, not rats, cats, dogs or any other veterinary medicine.


Anonymous: 2007-10-07 19:48:30

I'm not going to go on some whole long spew about why it's wrong, but I think it's wrong, and if drugs have to be tested, use a petri dish, it is a safe, accurate alternative to testing on animals.


Anonymous: 2007-10-07 03:21:27

i feel that the vivisectors are up to thjeir old tricks of pretending to be anti-vivs and presenting stupid arguments. the last entry from theperson with the poor spelling reminds me of much earlier entries about testing 'rugs' on animals.

the drugs tested on animals do not go to our benefit. According to the WHO over 99.55 of drugs cause side effects and drug side effects are the fourth largest cause of death in first world countries, some benfit.

see entry posted at 2007-08-29 00:49:50 for more info re. drugs.

immitating anti-vivisectionists to make us look stupid. But, when you have no points what else can you do?

"Whoever does not hesitate to vivisect will hardly hesitate to lie about it." George Bernard Shaw


Anonymous: 2007-10-04 16:10:56

I think that it should be tested on humans or if not humans nothing at all, Why dont they make a machine or something to represent a human body.Animal testing should not be aloud, does the drugs tested on the animals go to there benefits no, does it go for ours yes, we should respect the animals more than respect ourselves.


Anonymous: 2007-10-04 02:34:36

If you value human life you should absolutely be against animal experiments. they are the main cause of human illness because different results between species mean humans are damaged when we are exposed to substances only tested on animals, please see many prior entries indicating this.


Anonymous: 2007-10-03 03:07:23

Animal testing is inconclusive. They have different systems to human's! am sure we have the science to test things in different way but we choose to test on animals because its cheap!

It's not fair the way these poor animals are not cared for after painful vivisection and just left like in many video's I have seen on you tube
Monica Harris


Anonymous: 2007-10-03 00:18:20

yes i think we should do alwayes testing a animal first, i do value human life more


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 23:05:21

To the supporter of vivisection who asked for peer reviewed articles. Please see the entry of 2007-09-21 14:47:42


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 09:50:31

The vastness of the printed info by people who do animal experiments is proof that it does not work. If it did then cures would occur and diseases be eliminated, yet the printed info referring to animal experiments becomes more vast by the day. Millions of experiments. If a politician said 'i didnt sleep with that woman" and later said "okay i did it" which statement would you believe? So it is with vivisection, it is hardly surprising that vivisectors, whose income, qualifications, status, identity and self esteem come from animal experiments would support it. It is more believable when they admit that there is no scientific validity to vivisection as ernst Boris chain, joint nobel prize winner for the discovery of penicillin and employee of chemi grunenthal, the company that produced thalidomide ( a drug which did not cause birth defects in 60 out of 63 species tested)said at the legal trials for the damage caused by it, "No amount of animal testing, even on a whole cross-section of species including primates will ever give a reliable indication of what effect that substance will have in humans." there are too many other quotes to include.
The fact that no other species do not suffer from cancer in their natural environment indicates that it is not at all natural for humans to be dying of cancer at a rate of 1 in 3, or in fact at all. We die from cancer because we are exposed to carcinogens, simple. These carcinogens all pass animal tests, warnings on cigarette labels were delayed for 10 years because animal studies did not indicate that smoking caused cancer, the 29 human studies indicating that it did were ignored. this is only one example of many.
There is no scientific information supporting vivisection. Fiction is also published widely and sometimes it is called fact. einstein only had 3 published papers in his life. vivisectors on the other hand may be published hundreds of times in their 'careers' if they are clever and opportunistic enough and despite all of this publishing and prestige and money something is missing...what could it be? Oh yes, actually curing a single human disease...a convenient oversight. The major killers of 100 years ago have been eradicated due to hygiene, simple. Bentham and chadwick knew that 400 years ago and helped London to be re-built in a way that facilitated hygeine, clean water, space, sewerage and rubbish removal, asepsis. this eliminated the vast majority of old diseases. We would have a disease free society if we just removed one thing, animal 'tested' substances. here are a few thgings which pass animal 'tests'; strychnine, arsenic, botulin, asbestos, HIV infected blood, DDT, benzene, cigarettes, thalidomide. I challenge any supporter of vivisection to consume these substances. if you would not do it then you cannot genuinely support animal experimentation. The most eminent scientists of all time have opposed vivisection, charles darwin ceased his medical studies because he was required to vivisect, einstein was a vegetarian, bentham and chadwick, there are too many to mention.
We can elarn something from observing animals. if wee observe them in their natural environment we find that disease is rare or non-existant. Humans have 30,000 diseases, a third die of cancer and a third from heart disease 9in developod nations) yet we have over 300,000 drugs, millions of doctors, hospitals, billions spent on medical 'research' and drug developement and over 300 million animals a year killed supposedly to make us healthy. again I challenge you to come up with a real point.


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 02:22:43

I think it shouldn't be tested on none of them because animals and humans are practically the same thing. I think they should test it on dead insects, animals, or humans. Animals were on this earth way before humans were. I hate animal cruelty so PLEASE PLEASE do NOT test it on animals....thank you if you dont test it and screw you if you do...


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 00:34:02

"What's the point?" Don't you mean "What points could there be to defend vivisection?" There are none. It is scientifically impossible to base medicine for one species on any other species. I challenge you to present some points to prove me wrong.

There are over 1000 of these 'isolated individuals, all doctors and scientists, in "1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection" by Hans Ruesch.

"It is difficult to h=get a man to understand the truth when hsi salary depends on his not undersaetanding it." Upton Sinclair (add 'status, self esteem, identity' to salary)


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 00:28:14

Humans and animals only get the same diseases less than 2% of the time (see the shac site). Therefore it is invalid to base human medicine on animals. We done need to test drugs etc on prisoners etc either. All that needs to be done is to eliminate the causes of disease (ie the hundreds of thousands of animal 'tested' substances which damage humans and our planet constantly)


Anonymous: 2007-10-01 18:01:19

I think we should test the medicine of murderers and paedophiles the real criminals and let poor animals go as they dont deserve this abuse and most dont even share the same DNA with us


Anonymous: 2007-10-01 03:29:24

We should deffintelly test it on humans, because after all, the medicine is for HUMAN USE ONLY!
Why should animals have to suffer through the expense of a human disease or virus.
Let the poor animals go they dont deserve such cruelty.


Anonymous: 2007-09-29 21:01:59

Animal testing kills more humans & animals than human testing does. If the results of a test on a certain sub species of lab rat dont corrolate to the test results from a diffrent sub species of lab rat, what are the chances that the results would corrolate to humans, a completely diffrent species? Animal testing is utterly pointless& exists only to make money because thats all humans care about.


Anonymous: 2007-09-29 02:27:29

I don't think that we should test on animals at all. The only way to find out how a human will react to a medicine is to test on a human.


Anonymous: 2007-09-28 14:11:00

The onus is not on AV's to prove that vivisection is fraud it is up to the vivisectionists to show that what they are doing is not FRAUD! They always point to history and bend it to their own needs ignoring the facts. An independant evaluation is what is needed but the vivisectors don't want that either because they know what they are doing is wrong and DOES NOT WORK!!


Anonymous: 2007-09-28 00:57:27

I say do the testing on death row inmates!!! they should do something worthwhile.


Anonymous: 2007-09-27 04:55:26

"Vivisectors, where are you? Do you have nothing to say in defence of your crime? Aren't you going to tell us that it is essential for saving human life etc? the usual lies. You simply have no argument in defence of vivisection?"

What's the point? You anti-vivisectionists have already made up your minds and will not change it in front of any sort of scientific evidence. You keep pointing to isolated books published by a few individuals of questionable merit.

The onus is on YOU, not us, to start getting some of your claimed facts on why animal testing is not useful, published in some peer reviewed journals...


Anonymous: 2007-09-21 23:35:09

I am so happy to see all the support against Vivesection and animal cruelty. All the senseless and vile slaughter should stop.
What is the most confusing and disgusting thing about such experiments is the fact that if they don't work, the drugs are sold anyway on the basis that the tests were done on animals, therefore the results are irrelevant because their system and body is different to ours. If the tests turn out positive, they sell the drug because it has been tested on animals and is therefore suitable to use. In my opinion, this is ridiculous, and the vivesectionists that carry out this inexcusable torture should have them done on themselves, and see how they enjoy it. Maybe then we could finally get some real results, rather than the complete and utter stupidity that is maintained on a day to day basis as more animals are murdered for us 'superior' beings.
One main argument is that animals 'don't have souls'. If you hadn't noticed, dim witted pustules that you are, we are also animals. And it does not even come down to souls: so long as the being that is being tested on has a nervous system, a heart and a brain, how can it be justified that we cause pain. Just because we do not speak their language, and that they are different to us, it does not mean there are here for the purpose of our personal use and greed.
End Animal Testing. Full stop.


Anonymous: 2007-09-21 14:57:20

To the heart drug 'researcher'. please look at the financial times website to an article called "Flaws in animal tests". There it states that only 1 out of 100 drugs which helped animals also helped humans. So the fact that this drug is killing 50% of the animals you are using tells you nothing about what it will do to humans. It will give you legal protection though if you give a drug which passed animal tests with flying colours to a patient and the patient dies just as it did for heart transplants, heart bypass etc.
I suggest that you microdose the drug in humans, this will cause no harm and will tell you what effect the drug has in humans. Currently you are wasting your time, animals lives and taxpayers and kind hearted but gullible donors money.


Anonymous: 2007-09-21 14:47:42

To quote the former scientific director of Huntingdon Life Sciences (a name which completely contradists what it really is) "The best guess for the correlation of human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" The report of the british pharmaceutical expert committee on drug toxicity stated "Information from one species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from the suffering because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually but the gain is to industry, not humanity." Report of the Medical Research Council, "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitavely from one species to any other species." The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." For over 1000 more quotes from honest doctord and scientists see "1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection" by Hans Ruesch at www.dlrm.org  Please do not suggest experimenting on people on death rowThe continuation of animal experiemnts has nothing to do with science, on the contrary it continues because it provides legal protection to industries which manufacture artificial substances. These substances do harm humans and the environment. Needless to say these industries do not want to be sued. So, while animal experiments are expensive compared to real scientific methods, they save industries vastly more than they cost. Over 85% of drugs which pass animal 'tests' fail in clinical human trials, this is proven on millions of animals a year.
This does not mean we need human experiments it means that animal experiments cause human experiments because they do not provide results applicable to humans, so humans exposed to animal 'tested' substances are indeed being experimented on.
The right way to test drugs is firstly human cell culture, we have them for over 120 parts of the human body, secondly micro-dosing in humans; this means giving micro amounts of a drug, too small to cause harm and then doing biopsies on the human and gradually increasing the dose. Why do drug co's not remove animal tests? No legal protection without them.
Once we inevitably have diseases from exposure to hundreds of thousands of artificial substances which have not passed a valid test we demand medical research. What do we get? More animal experiemnts. Humans and animals get similar diseases less that 2% of the time making them worthless for curing human disease. The result? Diseases are never cured, we have 30,000 of them now.


Anonymous: 2007-09-21 03:13:01

I've often wondered, even as a child, why aren't the people who are sitting on death row that are clearly guilty, able to volunteer to be experimented on. I know it sounds cruel and inhumane, but wouldn't that be the best way for them to repay society while we are paying for their education, food and shelter??? Animals were not put on this earth to be tortured and who ever came up with the idea of using an animal to test our cosmetics? I've never seen an animal using makeup or hair products


Anonymous: 2007-09-21 00:58:05

animals dont have a choice if they want to be experimented on, they dont want to go through all of that pain just to help us! if we want to find new medicine or whatever we should test it on humans because then we will kno how it will react on humans for sure!!!


Anonymous: 2007-09-20 19:15:11

They should test on humans for a more precise idea about how safe medicines are! Not all animals react the same humans do, also humans can tell u more what they're feeling. What if theres no physical reactions but unseen reactions on animals, then its made a safe medicine and then a human suffers. The people who tested them become responsible!


Anonymous: 2007-09-20 01:51:11

Glad to see so many people in support of the animals.


The way I see it, it just doesn't make any sense to test something on an animal that is meant for a human.

We wouldn't test products for animals on humans would we?

More than likely not.


It just seems that if we tested, let's say.. a pill for, who knows what on an animal. The outcome would be different when used on a human.
And visa versa.


Well, their's my two cents.


Anonymous: 2007-09-19 02:52:28

end animal testing period.
it's cruel and grotesque
humans should tested for human diseases.


Anonymous: 2007-09-18 12:48:17

If new methods are better then scientists will use them ... doh ... animal experiments are very expensive, and if they don't work why would anyone fund them? If the pharmaceutical companies could make better medicines without animal experiments then they would make bigger profits more quickly ... doh ... so why do they do animal experiments ... because it is still currently the best way to find out what does and does not work and what is safe and not safe ... doh ... remember the Northwick Park study where humans got very sick? Why does this not happen very often? Because drugs are first tested on animals not humans ... doh ... do we want more Northwick Park accidents ... doh...???


Anonymous: 2007-09-18 12:39:42

I have a medicine to treat fatal heart disease. I am currently testing on animals since there is no other method to see whether a drug is able to save lives... think about it, what else dies... computers...!!!? I will gladly take any human volunteers to test. So far about half of the animals have died whilst working out the dose so I think that the volunteers chances may be quite good for survival (maybe over 50%)but I am still working out the dose so I can't be held responsible if you also die. Please sign-up to save animals ... you only have your life to lose ... either now or when you get heart disease ... as most Americans do... what no volunteers...?


Anonymous: 2007-09-18 12:34:03

This survey clearly demonstrates, beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, that ignorance really is bliss.


Anonymous: 2007-09-16 03:36:51

Ignorance, naivety and emotional arguments. Yes we have had enough of them. Images of sick children who we are told will only be saved by more research and not a single rational argument ever presented as to why or how killing animals will help them. Just a plea for more money from the vivisectors.
Thankfully some real scientists (ie those who use methods which are applicable to humans) have told the truth and we are starting to advance despite vivisectors efforts to keep us in the dark and profit from our suffering.
"Impotent" describes the arguments used to defend animal experiments. "Important" describes real scientific methods and rational thought.


jpelegrin: 2007-09-14 19:21:11

I am so relieved to see that so many people who have posted responses here are looking out for the welfare of the animals, just like myself. I have seen countless undercover videos taken from animal testing "labs" that show the scientists continually abuse the animals while testing various products on the animals.

For example, in one video I watched, I disctinctly remember three scientists holding a baby monkey that was probably under a year old, and they were trying to shove a tube down the monkey's throat to test some type of medicine. You could clearly see that the monkey was frightened and scared about what was going to happen to him/her. So, of course, the scientists were struggling to get the tube to go down the monkey's throat. Then, one of the scientists said "I will do what I have to do to get this down this f***ing monkey's throat!" So, it is not merely about testing products on animals, it is the lengths that the companies and scientists will go through to test on animals. It is wrong to test on animals, especially when there is so much advancement in technology out there!


Anonymous: 2007-09-14 06:24:01

Ignorance, naivety, emotional arguments.

Thankfully it isn't you luddites who make impotent descisions for us.


Anonymous: 2007-09-14 03:46:28

just leave animals alone.
test on anyhting else, how can we call ourselves civilized
when all we dew is traumatize all living things around us......


Anonymous: 2007-09-12 21:58:56

all living things deserve rights. although animals cannot do the things we do doesnt mean they dont have feelings.doesnt mean they dont have friends and lovers,enemies and relationshipts,etc. just because what we see is different from what they can actually do, we treat them a trash.wait,we treat trash better than them. at least trash gets a proper burial in stead of multiple bodies being shoved into a black bag and thrown somewhere.

animal testing proves nothing in the scientific world. they have different body functins and body outcomes under certain conditions.and in a lab when they induce an animal with a dieses,(for example AIDS), thats not ow the dieses would occur in the natural world. animal testing is just not natural,just a load of lucky mumbo-jumbo GUESSES.

and it would be cheaper to use artificial programs than an animal. animal testing is just another word for cruel money.

well for now thats all i got.
peace- well i hope.


Anonymous: 2007-09-12 08:40:14

Yes, computer models, mass spectrometry, post marketing surveillance, cell cultures, epidemiology, clinical observation and so many more real scientific methods. Eliminating all animal experiments and using these would bring about the greatest advancement in human health since hygeine.
Unfortunatley it is this very fact; that they work, which stops many being used. Industries which make artificial substances (mainly pharmaceutical and petro chemical) are looking for a method that does NOT work as their aim is to CONCEAL the effects of their products to avoid successful litigation for the damage they cause. They know that animal experiments are fraudulent, their own data shows it millions of times a year.


Anonymous: 2007-09-10 19:45:22

it should be neither animals or humans, computer based research has proven to be most effective..its just to expencive, they are cheap.


Anonymous: 2007-09-10 14:21:13

Straw men? the claim that human medicine could be based on other species of animals is made of straw and would burn from the smallest spark of truth...here are a few; species difference makes it impossible to reliable transfer results between ANY two species.
"Of the 392 chemicals in our data base, 226 were carcinogens in at least one test, but 96 of these were positive in the mouse but negative in the rat, or vice versa. Conversely important human carcinogens may not be detected in standard tests in rodents: this was true for a long time for both tobacco smoke and alcohol, the two largest causes of neo-plastic death in the United States." Dr Bruce Ames of UCLA. If it is not possible to even transfer results from a mouse to a rat how could they possible be transferred to humans? They can't be. What about chimpanzees I hear you ask, they have a 98.5% genetic correlation to us dont they? Well, the thing in the monkeys hand, the banana has a 66% genetic correlation to us. Fantastic, doesn't that mean that two thirds of human disease can be cured by banana experiments? And two thirds of substances humans consume can be tested for safety and efficacy on bananas? Ofcourse not, because genetic correlation does not transfer to these results. Ask the relatives of the deceased people who died after receiveng HIV infected blood which did not give AIDS to monkeys or thalidomide victims what they think of animal based human medicine. Monkeys can also consume strychnine in large quantities, don,t get malaria, hepatitis, AIDS or TB (which have killed millions of humans), were given polio via the respiratory system (we get it via digestive system) this delayed polio research for 29 years, then using monkey cells in the vaccine killed more humans and gave them polio and they do not naturally get any of our diseases. This is the CLOSEST animal to the human, animal experiments just can't get any better than this and it is a disaster for humans. It has and continues to damage and kill humans.
Yes dogs, monkeys and pigs have been used to pioneer organ trnasplants. Ask baby Fae's parents what they think of animal experiments, she died days after receiving her heart transplant, I wonder if they were consoled to know that it had been tried on 100 dogs before her? The hospital and surgeons were certainly consoled by that fact as it greatly diminished their chances of being sued as killing monkeys did for Christian Barnard. As always trial and error in HUMANS lead to improvement in practice. These humans who were duped or desperate enough to pay with their lives shoudl be thanked and the vivisectors should be condemned for deceiving them.
So PLEASE let us talk about real science, mouse medicine has no place for us. If you support animal based medicine for humans you are truly anti science.
Let us have a peer reviewed double blind trial of animal experimentation. It would not be allowed because it would show that animal exp. has no scientific validity. Anti viv groups have been calling for this for a long time. there is too much to say. Please read about this and be honest, move forward. This also applies to those who use only a moral ethical arguemtn against animal exp., please accept that you must use a scientific argument, the evidence is overwhelmingly on our side.


Anonymous: 2007-09-09 07:31:31

Perhaps we should test on straw men because straw men are the only arguments (other than blind emotion) that the anti-medical research people seem to have...


Anonymous: 2007-09-08 17:51:55

Animal experiements do not work. They never have, and there is a huge body of literature to support this. The anatomies of animals are entirely different to humans, anyone can see that. I'd also like to point out that there are differences between humans, between male and female, people have different dna, different strenghs, weaknesses, problems etc, and react differently to different drugs. So how on earth does testing on animals help?

animal experimentation continues because an entire industry has been bulit around it, and people are making money from it.

New technology is available and already being used to test products (just look at the BUAV's cruelty free list).

Im glad that so many people on this topic agree that animal cruelty must stop. It is unimaginably cruel and a waste of time.


Anonymous: 2007-09-08 05:48:36

Animals do not have rights as they have no responsibilities. Animal welfare though, is a human responsibility and one that should be taken very seriously.
UK legislation is sufficient to ensure that all animal welfare requirements are met. The problem is that the government won't provide enough funding for inspections to make sure the laws aren't breached. That is what we need to campaign for. Not this ludicrous anti-medical-science position that some of you seam to want!


Anonymous: 2007-09-07 20:51:33

Animals do not deserve these cruel experiments . Leave them alone and let them live in their natural environments not cages.
What has this world come to.
What has happened to animal rights? the worlds gone mad.
Everyone stand together and help ban all animal cruelty!


Anonymous: 2007-09-07 14:50:34

Animals are not ours to test on!! Barbaric!
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi
"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, SCIENCE WITHOUT HUMANITY, Worship without sacrifice and politics without principle." Mahatma Gandhi

I feel alot of pharmaceuticals are just cash cows, driven by greed. Most illnesses can be prevented/treated in more natural methods. And do we really need another detergent brand?????? Do not support products that test on animals please.


Anonymous: 2007-09-06 23:46:26

ANIMALS ARE LIVING THINGS!!!!! what kind of nutcase thinks that it is ok to poisin them... torture them!!!! i think that they should use all of the supporters of animal testing as test subjects. see how they like it now!!!


Anonymous: 2007-09-06 10:51:32

To the response posted @ 2007-08-29 00:49:50.

It is interesting, that of the 4 scientists you name, I can't find a single paper authored by any of them in any respected, peer-reviewed journal (if I am wrong please provide citations). The opinions of a handful of individuals, no matter how eminent they are, cannot be regarded as science unless they have passed peer-review. One of the scientists you reference died in the 19th century and so can hardly be called up to date.

Of cause humans are not mice or monkeys but when all mammals share the vast majority of their genetic code (up to a 98% similarity with Bonobos and Chimps) certain systems within those mammals will produce very close analogues to human physiology, even if we can't find all those analogues in the same species. This is why different animals are used for different types of experiment.

You suggest genetically modifying drugs for individuals or specific groups, yet most drugs have no gene-affecting component that could be modified. How does one modify a simple compound like acetylsalicylic acid or even a basic element like lithium, without fundamentally changing it's behaviour?

Not all surgery relies on animal testing but that does not remove the fact that a large number of surgical techniques were, quite rightly, pioneered on animals before being applied to humans. Without work done on dogs and pigs there would never have been a human organ transplant. The vast number of human lives that have been save or prolonged in such a way is more than enough justification for the small number of animal lives lost in the development of such procedures.

You claim that the profit motive is behind animal testing yet around 40% of such experiments carried out in the UK are conducted or commissioned by non-profit organisations. Often by wonderful charities such as Cancer Research UK. No profit making organisation would waste time and resources on using such a costly and time consuming method if it wasn't likely to get useful results, never mind a non-profit making one that is constantly grubbing round for pennies. Your argument here is completely disingenuous.

And yes PETA/ALF/ARM are a terrorist organisation, if only at a low level. From Encarta:
"Terrorism, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or-equally important-the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals-that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state."
Did you catch that "or-equally important-the threat of violence" clause? This perfectly sums up PETAs modus operandi even though they stop short of murder. Do towns such as Oxford and Yoxall and more importantly their inhabitants mean nothing to you? People in both (and many others beside) have been terrorised by PETA for no reason other than proximity to activities PETA have taken offence to. You don't need to blow things up to be a terrorist, just deliberately induce fear.

There certainly is no reason for animal testing beyond medical research but the current UK framework is more than adequate to demonstrate there is value in any given test before it goes ahead. There should be a step up in inspections to ensure that standards of care don't fall bellow the legal level. However, to call for an absolute end to animal testing is to take the Luddite view that human knowledge should stop, dead, in 2007 and never be allowed to advance again.

I would gladly welcome a Royal Commission or Parliamentary Enquiry into the effectiveness of animal testing as I am quite sure it would show, once and for all, that all anti-vivisectionists are arguing from an emotional and not scientific standpoint and creating straw men for the sole purpose of deceiving the less well educated elements of the public.


Anonymous: 2007-09-05 04:07:45

wtf animals are completley different then humans .they could have a complete different reactions then a human will .they still test bleach and house hold products on animals they even pump nickitine or tabaco into a monkeys back while its pregnate they still burn animals to see the side effects what the f we allready know the side effects you stupid idiouts so called scientist go screw your selfd and jump off a bridge i hate animal testing .if we allready have the knowledge of human genes why go back to animals .vacinations are one thing okay but makeup and hair products we have natrual beuty products thier should be no pruducts for the body if its not natural .


Anonymous: 2007-09-05 02:59:43

As stated earlier drug deaths do not often occuer during testing as the tests are stopped if they are proving too harmful. 85% of drugs which pass animal tests fail in human trials and many that do make in to the market are withdrawn due to effects which are only apparent after exposure to the public.
Here are some substances which pass animal tests; strychnine, arsenic, asbestos, hemlock, botulin, DDT, benzene, cigarettes, HIV infected blood, thalidomide.
Refer to response 91. We are all victims of animal 'tests', particularly those of us who have had a relative die of cancer. virtually all carcinogens pass animal tests and animal based 'research' consistently fails to cure this, or any other, disease. Simple hygeine, antiseptic and clean water are overwhelmingly responsible for increase in out life expectancy. animal experimentation/vivisection is the most successful fraud being pulled on this planet.


Anonymous: 2007-09-02 08:16:28

"The fact their have only been two human deaths during drug testing in the UK in the last 30 years is a major testimony to the massive effectiveness of animal testing in drug research."

Yeah, and how many statistics are available outlining the deaths of animals during testing? I could search high and low, and I bet I wouldn't find a thing.

What shows no effect on an animal, may still kill a human. What kills an animal, may have no effect on a human whatsoever. What use is there testing on animals when the results are so different?

To all those ignorant fools who feel that animals ought to be killed for our benefit, stop being so damn arrogant and show a bit of sympathy. Yes, humans are the more advanced species, but how does that give us any right to use innocent creatures in such a horrific way? The scientists who actually do the testing, do these people have no souls? No sense of decency, morality, or even simple humanity?


Anonymous: 2007-09-01 22:59:44

Im glad that some compassionate people are responding. It is important to note that we do not need to use criminals, prisoners etc to test drugs, new procedures etc. ALL drugs and new medical procedures are already tested on humans and most of those humans would be damaged by these substances and procedures which PASS animal tests if the tests were not stopped. This is because the animal test does not indicate what effects a substance/procedure etc will have on humans. It only provides legal protection to companies, doctors, hospitals and not physical protection to humans. On the contrary, animal 'tested' substances are the main cause of human illness and death. We are all victims of animal tests as our bodies and our planet are polluted by substances which pass these fraudulent tests.
Please stop suggesting we use prisoners etc. this gives the impression that animal experiments work. It makes us look like inhuman idiots.
For real scientific methods see www.curedisease.net  and also refer to entries 89, 90 and 91.


Anonymous: 2007-09-01 01:48:12

I think this debate has been going on for a Iot of years. I think that we, as caring people should need to make our voices be heard louder. We should try to organize different events like Peta does sometimes and try to drive our point across to those hard headed people who don't give a damn about the animals plight and suffering.
Margarita
Homestead, Fl.


Krystal3490: 2007-08-29 03:40:10

I dont believe animal testing is right. I think it is stupid to test medication on animals. Why? They are not the ones taking the medication. Humans are... Id much rrahter test on humans


Anonymous: 2007-08-29 00:49:50

WOW indeed! Vivisectors create thier own "anti" vivisection replies on this site and then appear intelligent by comparison. Here is a genuine response to your claims.
I agree with your first point, the level of scientific ignorance is truly breathtaking, to claim that human medicine could be based on mice, cats, dogs, monkeys or whatever other species suits vivisectors is truly unscientific, it makes witch trials look like rocket science!
"We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." The Lancet. "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species." Report of the Medical Research Council.
You say animal tests are a major indicator of a drugs effect on humans. Pharmaceutical side effects are the fourth largest cause of death in the western world, exceeding the combined deaths from car and plane accidents, murder, suicide, terrorism, illegal drugs and all diseases except for cancer and heart disease. And they ALL pass animal tests. So few human deaths occur during drug trials because tests are stopped if the effects are counter indicative and mostly because human tests are for too short a duration on too narrow a cross section of the population (healthy males in 20's to 30's who are not the intended market for most drugs). 85% of drugs which pass animal tests fail in human trials. This means the animals tests are wrong 85% of the time at least. Micro-dosing is the best way to determine a drugs effects in humans. Firstly the human cell stage then micro-dosing of humans would determine a drugs real effects followed by post-marketing surveillance. Even better is genetically modified drugs for particular groups of humans. Drug effects vary between individual humans so how can we base their toxicity, let alone efficacy on mice etc.
"No amount of animal testing can make a drug safe because humans react differently from animals.' Lord Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians. "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancint the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from that suffering because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry not humanity". The report of the British pharmaceutical industry's expert committee on drug toxicity. "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species and therefore cannot guarantee drug 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" Dr Herbert Gundersheimer.
So, the only health being protected is the financial helath of the drug, petro-chemical and toiletries industries who gain legal protection and avoid being sued for the humans who they damage and kill on a daily basis by animal 'tests'.
You then say that surgery relies on animal experiments. What an outrageous lie! "not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often lead him astray." Robert Lawson Tait, the gynecologist from Birmingham who originated many of surgery's modern techniques, still in use today. Here is what Germany's most famous surgeon Dr Julius Hackenthal had to say at his Eubios Cancer Clinic near Munich on April 16, 1986 "After 41 years experience as a surgeon I can say with certainty that in my case animal experiments have contributed nothing to extending my surgical knowledge or improving my practical skill. That is definite. What is more, I consider cruel animal experiments as not permissable." To quote Dr Salvatore Rocca Rosetti, surgeon and Professor of Urology at the University of Turin, Italy, in the sciece program "Delta" on Italian television March 12, 1986, "I have seen surgeons who carrid out experiments on some organs from dogs in the belief that these were identical with those of humans, and they did not know that they were cutting into quite different organ, even into a lymphatic gland instead of the thyroid gland. Nobody has become a surgeon because of having operated on animals. he has only learned wrongly through animals. I have been able to see this over many decades as a surgeon, also as a Director of hospitals. I have carried out tens of thousands of operations on people without ever performing them first on an animal."
Veterinary medicine does not require the killing or harming of healthy animals just as human medicine does not requiire this of humans. Clinical observation of naimals and epidemiology are required to eliminate animal disease. If there are no sick animals to observe then there is no problem to be fixed. Indeed use complete organism..of the ill anmial requiring treatment.
I agree that we dont have alternatives. To quote Prof pietro Croce, Fulbright Scholar "Alternative to what? It would be veruy difficult to find anything that could be more misleading for biomdical research than animal experimentation." What we do have are real scientific methods, these differ from vivisection in that they are scientific, meaning results are relaible, repeatable, applicable to humans and could eliminate human disease. None of these traits apply to animal experiments.
I agree that it is shocking that people would suggest human experiments. The cause of human experiments is animal experiments. Because it is impossible to determine what effect a drug, surgery or treatment will have in humans via animal experiment the first humans to receive such are indeed being experimented on, ane they often pay with their lives. "Animal models differ from their human counterparts. Concliusions drawn rom animal research when applied to human disease are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient. Animal experimentation inevitable leads to human experimentation." Dr Brandon Reines.
You then say that the ALF are terrortists. The reason they are albelled as such is because they are a threat to the financial interests of powerful industries who lobby (i.e. bribe) governemnt, eg pharmaceutical, chemical co's. If we compare the n=umber of people killed by animal 'tested' substances to those killed by the ALF (if their are any) it would be clear who the real terrorists are.
You mention debate, I have asked vivisectors to publicly debate me many times and they will not do it so I challenge you also to debate.
Yes many of us argue on scientific grounds for the elimination of vivisection, please look at these sites and realise that vivisection kills animals and humans. www.curedisease.net , www.dlrm.org , www.mrmcmed.org , web.linkny.com/~civitas , www.vivisection-absurd.org.ik , www.siav.org , www.pcrm.org , www.navs.org , www.aavs.org , www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
No offence intended. I hope you are mature enough to realise that a human is not a mouse or a monkey.


Anonymous: 2007-08-27 08:23:07

"NO amount of animal testing, even on a whole cross section of species will give any guarantee of what effect that substance will have in humans" joint nobel prize winner for the discovery of penicillin Ernst Boris Chain at the thalidomide trials.
"90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons" and "There is at best a 5 to 25% chance that a substance tested in animals will have the same effect in humans" Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the biggest contract 'research' lab in the world.
For over a thousand more doctors and scientists who had the courage to against self interest and tell the truth see "1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Animal Experimentation" by Hans Ruesch


Anonymous: 2007-08-27 04:29:24

it is clear that some of the anti animal experimentation comments here have been posted by those who are actually in support of animal experimentation in order to make anti-vivisectionists appear stupid. These would be the only ones supporters of animal experiments could win a debate with.
The fact is animal experiments are the largest killer of humans and cause of human illness in the world and also a major environmental polluter. ANY poison will PASS an animal 'test' eg strychnine, arsenic, botulin, asbestos, HIV infected blood, DDT, benzene, cigarettes, thalidomide to name a few. Needless to say any poison, pollutant, carcinogen, teratogen or artificial substance will pass such a fraudulent test. Species difference makes it imposible to transfer results between species, thats why we have veterinary and human medicine and they are not the same.
So, in the first instance animal experiments cause human illness by passing anything as safe and thereby providing legal protection to manufacturers.
THEN once we are suffering from many diseases, particularly cancer in stead of genuine medical research which is applicable to humans we receive more animal experiments. The result; no disease cured, more coming and old ones increasing...and the money keps rolling in to the vivisectors.
"it is difficult to get a man to understand the truth when his income depends on his not understanding it."
Vivisectors, you will never fool us all!


Anonymous: 2007-08-26 00:36:52

i hate people that think its right to test all the rugs on animals yer i would like to do the same what they o to animals to the people who thinks its right ITS NOT RIGHT ITS MEAN! and they don't desevre this whats the point we have to many rugs alreay so please stop and if you don't we will have to stop it ourselfs like i always say little person big voice an we won't t stop trying untill you stop, till it all stops an till animals cruelty stops FOR GOOD!


Anonymous: 2007-08-23 12:18:23

"Then what about veterinary medicine? If, for example, a cure for Bovine TB could only be tested on cows does that mean we should stop trying to find one?"

If you state it like that, then medicine for animals should be tested for animals and medicines for humans should be tested on humans.


Anonymous: 2007-08-19 09:00:27

WOW! I am truly astounded. The level of scientific ignorance on this thread is truly breathtaking.Of course, animal testing is no philosopher's stone but it is a major indicator. The fact their have only been two human deaths during drug testing in the UK in the last 30 years is a major testimony to the massive effectiveness of animal testing in drug research. Then there is the vast wealth of surgical procedures that would never have been developed without animal experiments. I assume that all of you arguing for a complete ban would refuse any treatment for yourselves, your children, your parents or grandparents, if there had ever been any animal testing involved. Would you?

Then what about veterinary medicine? If, for example, a cure for Bovine TB could only be tested on cows does that mean we should stop trying to find one? Unfortunately, at this stage of our knowledge we can only go so far working with tissue samples and computer models. If we want to learn we need to do so with complete organisms.

Of course the number of animals used and the number of experiments they are used in should be kept to an absolute minimum and we should always be looking for alternative methods but we just don't have all those alternative methods yet.

The eugenic views, advocated by many on this thread, are particularly shocking. This sort of disrespect for humanity is exactly what leads people to regard PETA as standing for People Encouraging Terrorist Activities (and PETA's funding the legal defence of low level terrorists calling themselves the ALF does much to substantiate this). At least organisations such as BUAV are committed to both non-violence and research into developing alternative methods.

Given that I seem to be the first dissenting voice, in what is quite a long thread, I suspect my comment won't be here for that long (although I am new to this site and aren't yet familiar with the moderation philosophy), however, if this place is about debate, dissenting views should be allowed to remain.

If any of you have any arguments on why I should change my opinion, based on science rather than emotion, I am willing to listen and if compelling enough change my opinion. However you better do better than either PETA's anti-humanism or BUAV's naivety.

No offence indented to anyone, I hope you are all mature enough to understand that opinions can vary.


Anonymous: 2007-08-12 10:55:37

bla bla bla, "if it was your father..." give me a break! That such a narrow minded opinion, just because thats the method the majority of our drugs are tested it does not mean thats the only method! It makes economical sense aswell as making the process of drug developement quicker as currently drugs are designed, tested on animals, then clinical trials on humans then further developement, wouldnt it make sense to just bypass the animal trials and focus purely on humans? Millions of people die or get severly buggered up every year from side effects of animal tested drugs, side effects which animal tests did not highlight, which shows that just because they tested on animals, does not make them safe!
Do you not think that as human beings, which know animals feel pain and get distressed etc that we have a moral obligation to protect other sentient beings from intentinal pain and distress? i do, oh and to reply to the stupid remark "if it was your fam..." My dad had a stroke due to animal tested drugs which were ment 2make him better, but made him worse off so no if i had a choice id choose my family to have drugs designed soley around humans, not animals!


Anonymous: 2007-08-09 13:08:37

I agree that animals shouldn't be tested on, but in some views I think god made us to be in control the world, not animals. I know some people out there are angry at me for saying this. BUt if God didn't like it, we would be the animals pets, not vice-versa no one deserves to be tested on not even criminals that have committed crimes, I believe that everyone deserves another chance.

BUt think, if it was your father, mother, sister, or brother, who was dying, would u rather an animal die or ur family.

I understand that people dont like animal testing but to save a few people I think it would be understandable.

for cosmetics i am 100% against it, but for lives, its a whole different matter


Anonymous: 2007-08-06 23:43:41

Animal testing is totally cruel and useless, you dont get the same results as you would with humans anyways. So what's the point of torturing and killing those poor animals that could be happy in a home.

Not to sound cruel or anything, but couldn't you test stuff on the prisoners sentanced to death? You'd get the results you need...

I really, really HATE animal testing, and just testing plain out, so how about we stop it completely and find alternatives?


Anonymous: 2007-08-06 17:47:03

Animal testing is cruel and horrible! Animals don't even react the same way we do, so testing medicines and stuff on them is just STUPID and useless! (Sarcasm) Oh and yeah, everyone's going to pour hairspray in their eyes, so lets pour it into the poor little animals eyes and make them burn out! That's the way to do it! (Sarcasm end) Seriously, animal testing is cruel, useless, and stupid! End it PLEASE!


Anonymous: 2007-08-03 13:50:52

first of all, all of us are doing everything wrong. i believe people should use more natural remedies and medicine for diseases and illnesses, but everyone just wants instant results all the time. i mean, that stuff works! the vitamins, herbs, supplements, it all works, but most of it is not accepted by the FDA. i don` t really think there should be any tests done on inmates either because they feel pain too and maybe they are not guilty and have no right to be injected with anything. maybe people will volunteer for some things, you know the emo-suicidals or some inmates who just really don` t care or people could get paid. i mean that` s how we all do everything else around here, right? animals are perfect nature. they have no right to be disturbed at all. their little bodies react much differently to ours, but we all still have souls and feelings. animal testing is low. it is just like bullying someone just because they you know they will not say anything back to you. not only wrong, stupid, but pointless. the world is messed up in the fact that everyone fights for money and comes up with absurd ways to get it. i wonder what the lab workers think when they cut the monkey` s head open or inject a fat needle into the rat` s body and feel it scream. do they not feel the heart beating in them and the breath taken in? if we know cigarettes are bad, why do they still make dogs smoke them? like i said, money money money. and nothing else matters. -


Anonymous: 2007-08-03 07:22:34

no animal should be used as a sort of tool
for no experiment
why do they have to feel pain for a stupid product of ours
instead of testing on animals why don't they find other ways to test medicine or any other products l


Anonymous: 2007-08-02 17:16:55

It Is So Wrong To Test Products On Animals..
Whats The Point Of Them Being Made By God Someone Who Created This Earth Not For Testing But For Happiness If They're Going To Get Tested Anyway?
100 dogs in a room. They vaccinate some, and leave others unvaccinated..... they introduce a disease, then test to see which animals contracted the disease. After they are finished, all animals are euthanized, because they have been exposed to a disease, and can not be used for further experiments. How many animals are passing through this lab each day? Just like Iams pet food company testing on animals in their labs..... the vaccine/medication/feed has been around for how many years..... why are we still testing it? As far as human products being tested on animals. Come on people.... animals aren't going to react the same as humans. You put a chemical on a dog, and he scratches the area raw.... was it irritation from the chemical, or is it a nervous stress induced reation from being shoved in a cage in a lab with thousands of other painful animals. My oppinion, use repeated and convicted felons. They can tell you if something burns or itches. Sorry..... my oppinion... you kill a little kid, or an elderly person, or continue to largely break the law when given a chance, you have lost your right to be a citizen of the public. Might as well get some good out of your low life, free loading ass. It is no more immorale than testing it on unwilling animals.


Anonymous: 2007-08-02 14:03:07

I also am against animal testing. Not only for human purposes, but animal too. I am going to school to be a veterinary technician, and have had people from several animal vaccine labs come in and speak about how they develop such things. 100 dogs in a room. They vaccinate some, and leave others unvaccinated..... they introduce a disease, then test to see which animals contracted the disease. After they are finished, all animals are euthanized, because they have been exposed to a disease, and can not be used for further experiments. How many animals are passing through this lab each day? Just like Iams pet food company testing on animals in their labs..... the vaccine/medication/feed has been around for how many years..... why are we still testing it? As far as human products being tested on animals. Come on people.... animals aren't going to react the same as humans. You put a chemical on a dog, and he scratches the area raw.... was it irritation from the chemical, or is it a nervous stress induced reation from being shoved in a cage in a lab with thousands of other painful animals. My oppinion, use repeated and convicted felons. They can tell you if something burns or itches. Sorry..... my oppinion... you kill a little kid, or an elderly person, or continue to largely break the law when given a chance, you have lost your right to be a citizen of the public. Might as well get some good out of your low life, free loading ass. It is no more immorale than testing it on unwilling animals. I will get off my soapbox now.


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 19:44:37

Animals shouldn't be tested on, they have feelings too. they can feel pain just like we do, the only reason they're being tested on is because we have tranquilizer guns to shoot the fuck out of them until they're completely defenseless.
just think about what you would feel like if you were that animal


fspence: 2007-08-01 18:38:40

I disagree with testing on animals, especially when there are alternatives. Harvard just invented a 'rat' that can be tested on. I think we can help by choosing products that are not tested on animals -- though I'm sure it'll be hard to avoid them all.

I for one, am a vegetarian, and I try choose 'animal friendly' products. I recently read that there are people who make part of their living by collecting dogs and cats from anywhere possible, even answering ads for 'free kitten's, etc, and then selling them to companies to be tested on. It's chilling.

I especially don't eat chicken, as chickens are surely the most abused animal in the world. There are few laws about their treatment. They are injected with hormones to make them so large they can't withstand their own weight, and are often boiled alive. I wrote to KFC to ask them to treat their poulty humanely, and I received a snarky response. I was really suprised by the response.

Anyway, rambling on, but my bottom line is: STOP animal testing. Even if it means we have to do without our favourite lipstick.


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 17:07:06

I hate animal testing and always have. so many people say that they would rater an animla die than a human, i wouldn't!! what makes us humans so special??

When a human is tested on, they get the best medical care on standby, they know the risks, they are treated well, they get paid and they AGREE to do it.

Whereas when an animal is tested on they are often abused, treated badly, dont know the risks and certaintly do not get paid!!

Animals are innnocent and dont know whats happening!! Its babaric and wrong to put another living thing throughs such distress!!

Say NO to animal testing!!
-Claudia, 14, London


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 08:36:39

This might not even affect anybody but I think testing on animals is horrible!! They dont even have the same bodies how could you tell what would happen on humans.. It might kill the animals but have no affect on humans or kill humans and have no affect on animals! Test it on people that are never getting out of jail or prison untill their dead then they wont have to even go through anything! But the reason their even in there is because they have done something wrong!! Who cares if it kills them they probably deserve it!!!


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 05:33:43

ok i just wrote one comment below well i decided to post again causes it made so mad. animal testing is horrible and wrong and should not be done. animals are helpless . you people are sick. animals don't have the same bodies we do so tell me,,,, why would you test stuff for human bodies on animals JERKS!


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 05:28:52

ok well so far that i have read ANIMAL TESTING IS FREAKING RETARDED. yeah lets use animals to test stuff for humans dumb asses use humans!!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 04:56:51

some just live in agony to die in pain

animal testing is wrong

why dont we just test on the scientist. maybe then theyll understand how animals have to put up with it and have to feel all that pain

just becuase animals can`t speak doesn`t mean they do not feel


Anonymous: 2007-08-01 04:21:05

i am totally against animal testing...not only is it cruel, but its usually ineffective. there really isnt any reason to continue the torture on animals...i can honestly say that even if i was dying, i wouldnt want to take medication i know was tested on innocent creatures who never agreed to the terrible things they go through. in my opinion anyone who can perform these "tests" are evil and sick. anyways....i work for the correctional system and i agree with testing on death row inmates, and also child molesters. it would be way more effective and we will be taking out trash instead of paying taxes to support these ppl while they sit in prison, living better than the homeless ppl on our streets.


William: 2007-07-31 22:06:37

Firstly, animal testing is a fraud. It's done for financial and political reasons.

Secondly, we are not material beings, we are made of energy. The old medical system is wrong. That's why death by cancer, heart disease, etc., is more prevalent than ever before. Drugs don't cure disease. Drugs cause many thousands and thousands of death per year.

We should be treated energetically. That is the medicine of the future. How long will it take the mainstream to catch up? Not until people educate themselves and demand a different system. Our present system is all about profit.

Thirdly, it is immoral and atrocious that we allow the torture and death of helpless animals in the name of science. People need to stand up to the system and stop this atrocity.

-WFT


Anonymous: 2007-07-31 19:36:19

I think that animal testing is the WORST thing we can do. Animals can feel pain just like people can. It's sick to think about the direction our world is going towards. If this is how we're testing our medications and things like that, I can only imagine what things will be like for the next generations to come. We're digging ourselves into a hole that we'll be unable to get out of.


Anonymous: 2007-07-31 13:04:54

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to EXPLOIT/Abuse in any way.

i so belive in this as you should be too .. so please stop all testing on animals why not try it on yourself and see how you would like it ..
grow up .. and give a children a chance to see wild life and animals in a care free invirament .. lisa Jones ill put my name up there im not scare of you at all


Anonymous: 2007-07-31 10:39:08

Its awesome to see so many people with the same views!
Animals have NEVER been ours to exploit and kill! Stop the fucking madness!


nstafford: 2007-07-30 17:35:11

There should be no testing on animals! All of the medication, toothpaste, deodorant, make-up, etc.etc., they put on the market is going to kill us anyway! We are such a pill-popping society. We need to look at natural/alternative remedies to healing our bodies. Not only are we killing innocent animals but we are also killing ourselves using this crap! I believe that God put plants on earth for a reason...to feed us and heal us. This is a slap in God's face for not using what he has provided us :(


Anonymous: 2007-07-30 11:33:33

pfft screw humans! wateva god was smokin that day he said that we rule over animals.. wat a load of shit that is.. we dont rule animals.. naw do we rule any other human... there is nothing different apart from that animals cant talk... would we test on animals if they can talk? no i dont think we would... they still feel pain... they feel scared they feel pretty much everything we do... its a complete waste of time its stupid we r hurtin animals for nothing..


Anonymous: 2007-07-30 02:01:28

why would you design and produce a product for humans & test on animals ? it doe not make any sense, we do not have the right to inflict pain on animals. I dont purchase any product made by a company that tests on or is affiliated with any sort of animal testing when will people relise animals are not disposable. why is there not a trial to see which is more affective ? that would be the sensable thing to do . .if you ever want a list of who tests on animals visit www.peta.com  for brands who DO & Don't test on Animals..
such as Loreal, Lancome, panteene, Parmolive, Garneir, Dove, Oust, Glade, Colgate any thing owned or producted by Proctor & Gamble ALL TEST ON ANIMALS SHAME SHAME


Anonymous: 2007-07-29 23:12:17

We have no right to inflict pain, suffering & torture on any living thing on this planet. As a species I think we have a lot to answer for,& animal testing is mainly for profit. I do my best to buy everything that is NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS & I don't eat them eithrer.


irishgirl7: 2007-07-29 22:00:37

I think we should drug test on people who have commited murders, rape, pedophilia, vehicular homocide w/ drunk driving and of course, people who have abused and murdered animals....mr. michael vick....


Anonymous: 2007-07-29 11:54:37

Animal testing was created by pharmaceutical companies in order to protect themselves from lawsuits should a drug cause severe side-effects.

It is performed for legal reasons only, not for efficacy of the drug. The directors of these companies are also closely linked to government ministers.

Animal testing enables a drug to be marketted in a relatively short span of time, so that the companies rake in the profits, provide massive bonuses to the fatcats and satisfy shareholders. If a drug causes an undicovered side effect, the companies turn around and say "we performed the necessary legal testing", thus eradicating themselves of responsibility for destroying people's lives.

The most powerful companies in the world are pharmaceutical/ agrochemical/ petroleum businesses. They are linked one way or another.

Animal testing tells us about the effect of a drug in THAT animal - not a human. The animals are 'inflicted' with a disease or condition, which is totally unlike how a human would contract the disease or condition. It is laughable how these companies have got away with brainwashing the public for so long on how 'great' they are - saving human lives!!!

Additionally, a drug should be screen tested on those afflicted with the dis-ease - not perfectly healthy human beings. There are so many non-animal testing methods that exist these days - created because of the high failure rate in animal testing. These include highly sophisticated computer modelling, through to cellular level testing (using human dis-eased tissues). Unfortunately, implementing these could be costly and reduce the profits of the company - something directors and shareholders will not want.

How many 'new' diseases are being created in the western world where most of these pharmaceutical companies exists? There is something not quite right here. And if these companies had our interest in health, why is it they never 'give away' essential 'drugs' that people in the third world need? These companies exist for profit only, period.

Incidently, any drug that appears to help humans do so despite the animal tests, not because of them. It is far more accurate to toss a coin to see if a drug is safe on humans!

Remember, animal experiments are simply - experiments... Their outcome has no indication on human outcomes.

We have the power to heal ourselves - the healing starts from within.
Love peace and harmony x


Anonymous: 2007-07-28 07:22:41

END ANIMAL TESTING


Anonymous: 2007-07-28 03:45:34

I think it is incredibly unethical of us to think it is alright to test on animals. Animals have rights and I am standing up for those rights, they feel pain, hunger and loneliness. These animals are locked in cages poked and proded ,what kind of life is that? Of course we need to test these medicnes to make sure they work but use someone who is willing, someone who can tell you it hurts....


Anonymous: 2007-07-28 02:01:03

Animal testing is ineffective, cruel and does not make any sense. If we want accurate results that apply to humans we need to test on humans that are healthy, 18 years or older, and fuly aware of what they are getting themselves in to. I honestly dont even know why we have continueed let scientific experiments on animals goi on for so long! Unlike humans, animals can not cry out for help or tell someone if they are being mistreated thats why we need to be thier voice and stand up for them. If we truely are the "superior species" it should be our responsibility to help others in need. Animal testing needs to STOP!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-27 03:35:14

first off animal testing needs to be stopped immediately. animals do not have the same systems as humans so what good is it to test drugs on them. all it does is cause pain and suffering to the animals. Second off, who in their right mind could do such harm to the poor animal and not a have a feeling of guilt. Testing on animals is cruel and inhumane.


BCEm45: 2007-07-26 08:56:32

Call congress and express any concerns concerning anything.
1-202-224-3121.

*what I want to do is gather a bunch of people and make flyers. Signs. pass out pamphlets. Shirts. Stickers. Art. Anything just to notify the public (young and old) who may over look many things or just try push them away, due to fear. If that is too much I feel and strongly believe if you just think of what you want to see and happen on a daily basis you can make a positive changes due to your personal vibration. It will affect others and spark massive amounts of good energy.

I too need to get out there and push for what I believe in but in the mean time I try to stay as humble and positive as possible in these times focusing on what I believe would lead to world peace. the ultimate goal for humanity.

Peace.


Anonymous: 2007-07-26 08:22:29

I want to say that I am extremely pleased to read all the responses in favor of discontinuing animal testing. It warms my heart to read that there are others like myself that feel animal testing is cruel and pointless and that every life is valuable. But the buck can't stop at mere words typed in response to a debate on the internet. We need to physically get out there and let our voices be heard by those in charge. And I'm sure, like myself, there are others out there that have the drive to do more, but don't know where to begin. So I ask for any guidance. What can I do to make a difference? How can I help?
With sincere thanks,
Heather


BCEm45: 2007-07-26 08:05:11

The creators of these new medicines etc. should be the ones who test the product. Animals should not be introduced to human experiment unless the human is willing to suffer the karmic reality. New means of healing and medicine does indeed need to be developed but developing new products to sell and taint humanity is not the way. There has to be a way to find altered natural means of healing and energy without a testing process to neither animal nor human being.


Anonymous: 2007-07-26 06:45:12

I want to say that I am extremely pleased to read all the responses in favor of discontinuing animal testing. It warms my heart to read that there are others like myself that feel animal testing is cruel and pointless and that every life is valuable. But the buck can't stop at mere words typed in response to a debate on the internet. We need to physically get out there and let our voices be heard by those in charge. And I'm sure, like myself, there are others out there that have the drive to do more, but don't know where to begin. So I ask for any guidance. What can I do to make a difference? How can I help?
With sincere thanks,
Heather


Anonymous: 2007-07-26 06:28:58

I want to say that I am extremely pleased to read all the responses in favor of discontinuing animal testing. It warms my heart to read that there are others like myself that feel animal testing is cruel and pointless and that every life is valuable. But the buck can't stop at mere words typed in response to a debate on the internet. We need to physically get out there and let our voices be heard by those in charge. And I'm sure, like myself, there are others out there that have the drive to do more, but don't know where to begin. So I ask for any guidance. What can I do to make a difference? How can I help?
With sincere thanks,
Heather


Anonymous: 2007-07-26 05:15:12

I hate that this debate even EXSISTS, let alone trying to rationalize anything.
It's such a horrible reality that everyone turns a blind eye about. No one cares enough to stand up and say that it's wrong. God DID NOT put animals here for us to exploit in this manner. What's that bible verse that talks about He does not forget the sparrow?...
All I have to say is judgement day is-a-comin'...


Anonymous: 2007-07-26 02:36:50

there are other alternatives to testing. for one thing, testing on animals is just horrible. God gave human beings the right to eat them, not abuse, test, and use them as products. who gave humans the right to treat animals so horribly? but testing on humans is wrong too. PETA says there are safer alternatives to testing. scientists HAVE ways. they just dont choose to use them.


KimmieChan7: 2007-07-26 01:52:19

I think that new drugs and stuff should be tested on people not animals. Why should we test something on animals that may not be safe to test on people? And just because it doesn't kill the animals, doesn't mean we won't have a reaction. Animals and people are very different.


Anonymous: 2007-07-25 21:36:07

I completely disagree with testing drugs for people on animals. What if we decided to test pet medicines on people? That'd be a big deal, wouldn't it? Forcing any living creature, be it rabbit, chimpanzee, rat, or human to do something against its will is absolutely unacceptable. I agree that there should be some sort of contract between a corporation and a group of volunteers to be paid to be tested on. Besides the fact that it is unethical, the biological differences between humans and their animal cousins are enormous. This just does not make sense to me? What can we do to stop it? If you have any ideas, drop me a line.
www.myspace.com/lostsoulinaphishbowl


Anonymous: 2007-07-25 20:30:32

Animal testing is wrong they are given no choice they are made to feel pain every day Testing on animals is like testing on babys they can't fight back .
We should take all the inmates from death row and use them we would save animals and money all in one
Down with Animal Testing


Anonymous: 2007-07-25 17:55:17

Human products should obviously be tested on people. Just because humans can overpower and control animals doesnt mean that we should. It is cruel and inhumane to test medicine or other products on animals. We have no right to put innocent creatures through such agonizing suffering. No matter how beneficial or necessary a product or may be, it should be those who want to use it should be the ones to run the risk and test it


truplaya4921: 2007-07-25 05:22:15

testing on inmates on death row is as unethical as animal testing.
1. not everyone on death row is guilty, to subject them to torture "the guilty" for the sake of bettering "the innocent" would be morally wrong. Not to mention, everyone in the United States breaks the law on a daily basis, should they be tested for new products just because they were locked away until they are put to death?
2. Anything where you take another living thing and subject it to test against its will is unethical. Animals, humans, inmates, they are all the same. We all feel pain. Animals cannot speak for themselves, neither can inmates because they are held under court of law; so their hands are tied. But the "free" people can make a choice for themselves.

my solution i propose to corporations is to test on willing volunteers who are paid according to the risk of discomfort and possible disabilities.

the only sort of animal testing i possibly approve of is highly dangerous medical experiments on diseases plaguing man. Ones that may cause an epidemic if it is allowed to mutate in our bodies or get out of a controlled environment.


uden1285: 2007-07-25 03:00:08

Ditto to what everyone has already said, it makes me sick to think that people think testing on animals is worthwhile. Test on Inmates on death row, they're gonners anyway, right. How is it that there is a law that bans cruel and unusual punishment for people and not animals, do animals not have nerve endings like all living creatures, they can feel pain and they don't have a choice, that's bullshit!


Anonymous: 2007-07-25 01:57:28

If the product is for humans, test it on a human. How dumb can these people be. Animals should not be tested on and it's obvious.


Anonymous: 2007-07-25 00:04:29

We should test on the likes of Michael Vick, the American Football player who makes fights dogs to their death. Please, British friends don't buy Nike!!!


libover30: 2007-07-24 20:50:56

Man continues to be the same evil species from day one. We have always felt we have the right and were above all others. But it is sad that we are this way, when we were supposed to be the more intelligent.

Man doesn't have the right to kill, torture, eat or wear anything that was living and breathing. But we do. And not only do we do this, but the rate in which we do this has been turned up. More and more animals each year are killed, yes killed for our sake. We continue to cry that there are to many animals on this earth, when the fact remains that there are way too many humans on this earth. We have taken just about every inch of land that animals once had to live on. But we don't view it this way, that is because we aren't just evil, we are selfish too!

Animal testing is barbaric and has been done for centuries. We have never seen any improvements to man from these tortured creatures, but it does saves the butts of companies that bring new medicines to the market. At least they can say, we tested it on an animal and the results were good! In fact the tests that are used are old, and who ever said that a poor innocent animal will react to these drugs the same as we very important humans?

We are disgusting as a species. And what I want people to think about is this very simple statement: We call them animals! Yet, we eat them!! Who is the true animal?


Anonymous: 2007-07-24 16:24:31

I understand animal testing, it's much easier to test new products on furry little animals then it is on cowardly humans who only want the benefit and none of the consequences. it's much easier to study something that cannot scream or beg you not to inject it with cancer or aids. then there's no need for anesthesia! yay! seriously, animal testing is cruel and unethical. if you don't have the means to test a product to where it doesn't hurt or demean a creation of God then you're not as smart a scientist as we thought, or maybe we just weren't meant to have it


Anonymous: 2007-07-24 14:16:53

I think really their should be no test at all. But is had to I agree with the one person. That you should test people on death row. ANIMAL TESTING HURTS AND ITS CRUEL!!!!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-23 17:49:34

I believe humans on death row (rotting in jail) are prime candidates in experiments. They obviously have no respect for life so why should we respect theirs?!? I absolutely adore animals and they are, of themselves, very therapeutic. The scientists have to be very cold-hearted to engage themselves in a career of hurting living things. It has to STOP!


Anonymous: 2007-07-23 08:34:31

animals feel pain and suffer just as much as we do. what gives people the right to do whatever they want with animals? nothing. infact if you read the bible it says that God wants us to take care of His creation. people who test on animals for pure human benefeit must have no soul. before anyone thinks animal testing is a good thing, why don't they get their pet, or their best friends dog and start shoving pills down their throat or injecting it with stuff because there is no difference between that and testing on animals living in cages in a laboratory. hey, while your at it, sit in a cage for a few months and inject your self and take pills, i mean it's a totally righteous way of living because by thinking animal testing is a good thing YOU ARE AN ANIMAL. no, sorry that's being too kind... YOU'RE JUST DIRT. STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY!


Anonymous: 2007-07-23 05:14:20

animal testing is cruel and wrong. animal testing needs to stop, theyall have hearts,brains,kidneys, and they all breath just like us. so how can anyone say its better to test on animals then humans?they are just like us only they have fur and can not speak.leave te animals alone!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-22 09:31:56

Drugs and products that are developed purely to benifit humans should not be tested on animals of any kind. If the developers of these products feel the need to test them on animals who don't have the power to refuse being a part of the crulety then maybe the product should be reconsidered, otherwise they would be tested on humans who have the power to refuse.
Products obviousy have to be tested to confirm the safety of the product, and to ensure their aren't serious side effects,but animals are living creatures aswell and if people are worried about testing the products on humans, then animals should get the same consideration.
Just because animals cant say no doesn't mean we can abuse and cause harm to them. Its cruel and spineless


Anonymous: 2007-07-22 07:28:34

Animal testing is one of the cruelest things one could do to a animal. The poor creatures can't say 'Hey! We don't like this! Stop it!' so it's up to us to stop it.
If scientists need to test something, test it on SOMEONE WHO CAN SAY STOP!
Animals can't tell us if the test object has a mental or emotional effect on them. Those bloody scientists can only tell if animals have a physical reaction to the test obect.
This has got o STOP. Right now, not next year or next month, NOW!
I mean sure, they got to test stuff, but not on animals. Test it on yourselves or a volunteer who can ssay stop or no more or how they feel emotionally or mentally.
Animals deserve a better life than this. They were here long before we came along. Its their planet too. And its their lives that are being affected.
STOP ANIMAL TESTING AND ANIMAL CRUELTY!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-22 04:17:30

Animal testing is cruel in all ways.
If its putting make up on them, hair spray or just testing medicines and drugs on them.
Just because an animal reacts to something doesnt mean we will. Animals arnt humans, they speak their own language and just because we dont understand it doesnt mean we can just do whatever we want with them. If we could talk to them...what would we say? Its not right at all


Anonymous: 2007-07-21 15:52:41

Prisons are overcrowded, they cost us billions a year. Test on prisoners, make them pay for their crimes. LEAVE ANIMALS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-21 15:06:46

animal testing sucks! how could you even consider this a debate? not one person who left a response went for testing them on animals. besides, animals bodies react to things differently than we do. and when they are in pain, they scream just like us. like one other person on here, i am an animal rights activist. that includes protesting, being vegan, and saying for animals exactly what i would say for a human. so dont be an idiot anymore, because we have already seen what testing on animals has done to them. its like taking YOUR pet into a lab and letting them do all these deadly experiments on your friend. im sure my sponser, PETA, is fighting for this argument as well. and again, if we want results to a medicine for people, test the medicine on people. it only makes sence!!!!! BAN ANIMAL TESTING EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-21 03:07:43

There is such amazing information at www.stopanimaltests.com

When I get sick, I don't go to the vet. So it only makes sense that when I want to find real cures for human problems, I won't use animal testing!


Anonymous: 2007-07-21 01:43:59

Of course you should tests the drugs on humans, I mean it's cruel and inhumane to tests them on animals. Animals don't have a voice and can't tell us how they feel and it's up to us to speak for them because if we don't, who will?


Anonymous: 2007-07-20 18:59:54

If you want to test how things work on HUMANS test it ON HUMANS!! Duh!! Aren't scientists supposed to be smarter than your average citizen? Animals CANNOT tell you if something hurts, makes it feel worse, causes pain, and cannot tell you if they are experiencing side effects. I was a paid guinea pig for a medication and I had an adverse side effect and ended up in the emergency room. I continued on the medical research because I felt it was important to the research to learn how it coud affect other people and to help them develop the drug so it does what it should. Testing on animals is CRUEL and INHUMANE and serves NO purpose. Stop the torture of innocent animals. They cannot help you - their bodies react differently than ours and there is NO reason in todays day and technological age to test on animals anymore anyway. STOP THE CRUELTY!!!!


Anonymous: 2007-07-20 16:34:33

testing on animals is pointless, as their bodies react differently to ours. it is cruel as well.


Anonymous: 2007-07-20 02:49:22

well as my opinion and many facts that animals feel pain and that it's unsafe to quote on quote expose drugs to humans by testing on animals animals can't say ow that hurts or ow that healed me i feel much better but rather react to things way differently such as primates there is a research going in which chimpanzees were infected with hiv but have yet to contract it , thus if an animal can not contract what makes you think you are going to find an accurate treatment!but that fact is by testing on animals you are killing more animals and humans combined than healing even if scientists say its ethical why are we listening to scientists when they have yet to find a cure without side effects or any cons c'mon scientists aren't the smartest people you don't need a degree to know by testing on animals you are doing more harm testing on animals is just like testing on disabled people whom cannot speak and/ or cannot think for themselves! There is no reason to test on animals even if they are so called an "initial target" when you put it that way doesn't it sound cruel well it';s the same as saying w/o testing on animals we cannot expose anything to humnas that is dumb there are many alternatives that are safe, up to date, efficent, ethical, and way way cheaper! Scientists or anybody for that matter should\'nt be able to test on animals because the U N in Europe has already threatened to shut down any company that doesn't take alternatives in consideration and by 2010 that all animal testing will be illegal! Thus by doing this saves more lives and saves more taxpayer's money and made sure that is not wasted I'll be damn to allow this to go on wait for 2040 and im in office i will ban all animal testing and other harmful animal torturing methods in which include factory farms! I am a teenager whom is on 13 yrs of age but am already an Animal Rights Activist and a vegetarian i save many animals day by day!


Anonymous: 2007-07-20 02:42:19

Animals don't deserve to be treated with such cruelty and ignorance. Animals have souls and feel pain. If People are concerned about causing harm to people then test people who are on death row. People get money for volunteering for research, animals get pain, and torture. Scientists hav to throw out so many tests because the data was messed and rats and humans do not react the same way. Some rats don't even die from rat poisons but people do


Anonymous: 2007-07-19 04:25:37

the results will be better if tested on people
animals feel pain, just bc they cant say it, dosent mean we can hurt them through the testing.


Anonymous: 2007-07-19 00:28:45

the animals they test on a innocent. STOP TESTING ON ANIMALS!!! I have always found it senseless, pointless and cruel. undercover videos have shown cruelty in labs for no reason!
the animals don't diserve it! they don't even know what happens to them, its not right. there has to be a non cruel way to test!!!
Hope Waggoner


Anonymous: 2007-07-18 03:29:52

I really do think that we should stop testing on animals, its cruel and heartless, and what did animals ever do to us?


Anonymous: 2007-07-17 05:57:20

I think those scientists who believe that its okay to test on animals because its better for human health are stupid, do they seriously know what the animals go through. If scientists are so smart why cant they make a artaficial person or something. As you can probably tell, i am against animal testing, I just think its cruel and people should re-consider what they are doing to the animals. And animals and humans are not the same so how can they be sure that they are getting the right responses to the drugs from animals as they will from humans. Thats all.


Second thread on the same subject   

Anonymous: 2007-10-14 01:59:46

I understand why people feel that these people should be used to test drugs. Unfortunately saying this makes those of us who oppose vivisection to seem anti-human and this is how supporters of viv. would like us to be perceivd. Lets not make it easy for them. We already have real scientific methods of drug teting, human cell culture, then micro-dosing in umans, this is not potentially harmful to humans. This is not an 'alternative' to animal experimets because animal experiments do not work and this does. This is real science, vivisection is fraud.


Shari: 2007-10-13 18:14:41

I totally agree to with her, why not 'use' the criminals that are on death row, the ones that are truly guilty. Why release the rape and murders so they can hurt again and use them for our benefit of testing. At least they would be good for something. And not beening released to hurt more people.


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 22:59:03

Please note we do not need to test drugs on criminals. Real scientific methods do not require this. www.curedisease.net  is a good site for info re. real scientific methods. We are all experimented on when we come into contact with substances which have only passed an animal 'test' as this does not give any reliable indication of what will occur in humans. The result of this is cancer and many other diseases.


fabulousfreakofnature: 2007-10-02 11:48:11

I agree with her, test on criminals,


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 09:39:26

The vastness of the printed info by people who do animal experiments is proof that it does not work. If it did then cures would occur and diseases be eliminated, yet the printed info referring to animal experiments becomes more vast by the day. Millions of experiments. If a politician said 'i didnt sleep with that woman" and later said "okay i did it" which statement would you believe? So it is with vivisection, it is hardly surprising that vivisectors, whose income, qualifications, status, identity and self esteem come from animal experiments would support it. It is more believable when they admit that there is no scientific validity to vivisection as ernst Boris chain, joint nobel prize winner for the discovery of penicillin and employee of chemi grunenthal, the company that produced thalidomide ( a drug which did not cause birth defects in 60 out of 63 species tested)said at the legal trials for the damage caused by it, "No amount of animal testing, even on a whole cross-section of species including primates will ever give a reliable indication of what effect that substance will have in humans." there are too many other quotes to include.
The fact that no other species do not suffer from cancer in their natural environment indicates that it is not at all natural for humans to be dying of cancer at a rate of 1 in 3, or in fact at all. We die from cancer because we are exposed to carcinogens, simple. These carcinogens all pass animal tests, warnings on cigarette labels were delayed for 10 years because animal studies did not indicate that smoking caused cancer, the 29 human studies indicating that it did were ignored. this is only one example of many.
There is no scientific information supporting vivisection. Fiction is also published widely and sometimes it is called fact. einstein only had 3 published papers in his life. vivisectors on the other hand may be published hundreds of times in their 'careers' if they are clever and opportunistic enough and despite all of this publishing and prestige and money something is missing...what could it be? Oh yes, actually curing a single human disease...a convenient oversight. The major killers of 100 years ago have been eradicated due to hygiene, simple. Bentham and chadwick knew that 400 years ago and helped London to be re-built in a way that facilitated hygeine, clean water, space, sewerage and rubbish removal, asepsis. this eliminated the vast majority of old diseases. We would have a disease free society if we just removed one thing, animal 'tested' substances. here are a few thgings which pass animal 'tests'; strychnine, arsenic, botulin, asbestos, HIV infected blood, DDT, benzene, cigarettes, thalidomide. I challenge any supporter of vivisection to consume these substances. if you would not do it then you cannot genuinely support animal experimentation. The most eminent scientists of all time have opposed vivisection, charles darwin ceased his medical studies because he was required to vivisect, einstein was a vegetarian, bentham and chadwick, there are too many to mention.
We can elarn something from observing animals. if wee observe them in their natural environment we find that disease is rare or non-existant. Humans have 30,000 diseases, a third die of cancer and a third from heart disease 9in developod nations) yet we have over 300,000 drugs, millions of doctors, hospitals, billions spent on medical 'research' and drug developement and over 300 million animals a year killed supposedly to make us healthy. again I challenge you to come up with a real point.


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 01:16:40

People opposing animal testing are Luddite morons of the worst order. They have chosen to latch onto a few out of context comments or have seized on the work of a tiny number of people, of questionable reputation. Heaven forbid that they should actually read the vast majority of scientific work out there that advocates animal testing!

Oh, and the reason cancer rates have been increasing in the last 100 years is because medical research as has been conducted over that time has eradicated, or reduced to a mere nuisance so many of the things that were major killers 100 years ago!


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 00:51:54

the claim that human medicine could be based on other species of animals is made of straw and would burn from the smallest spark of truth...here are a few; species difference makes it impossible to reliable transfer results between ANY two species. "Of the 392 chemicals in our data base, 226 were carcinogens in at least one test, but 96 of these were positive in the mouse but negative in the rat, or vice versa. Conversely important human carcinogens may not be detected in standard tests in rodents: this was true for a long time for both tobacco smoke and alcohol, the two largest causes of neo-plastic death in the United States." Dr Bruce Ames of UCLA. If it is not possible to even transfer results from a mouse to a rat how could they possible be transferred to humans? They can't be. What about chimpanzees I hear you ask, they have a 98.5% genetic correlation to us dont they? Well, the thing in the monkeys hand, the banana has a 66% genetic correlation to us. Fantastic, doesn't that mean that two thirds of human disease can be cured by banana experiments? And two thirds of substances humans consume can be tested for safety and efficacy on bananas? Ofcourse not, because genetic correlation does not transfer to these results. Ask the relatives of the deceased people who died after receiveng HIV infected blood which did not give AIDS to monkeys or thalidomide victims what they think of animal based human medicine. Monkeys can also consume strychnine in large quantities, don,t get malaria, hepatitis, AIDS or TB (which have killed millions of humans), were given polio via the respiratory system (we get it via digestive system) this delayed polio research for 29 years, then using monkey cells in the vaccine killed more humans and gave them polio and they do not naturally get any of our diseases. This is the CLOSEST animal to the human, animal experiments just can't get any better than this and it is a disaster for humans. It has and continues to damage and kill humans. Yes dogs, monkeys and pigs have been used to pioneer organ trnasplants. Ask baby Fae's parents what they think of animal experiments, she died days after receiving her heart transplant, I wonder if they were consoled to know that it had been tried on 100 dogs before her? The hospital and surgeons were certainly consoled by that fact as it greatly diminished their chances of being sued as killing monkeys did for Christian Barnard. As always trial and error in HUMANS lead to improvement in practice. These humans who were duped or desperate enough to pay with their lives shoudl be thanked and the vivisectors should be condemned for deceiving them. So PLEASE let us talk about real science, mouse medicine has no place for us. If you support animal based medicine for humans you are truly anti science. Let us have a peer reviewed double blind trial of animal experimentation. It would not be allowed because it would show that animal exp. has no scientific validity. Anti viv groups have been calling for this for a long time. there is too much to say. Please read about this and be honest, move forward. This also applies to those who use only a moral ethical arguemtn against animal exp., please accept that you must use a scientific argument, the evidence is overwhelmingly on our side.


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 00:43:27

Over a billion animals have been killed in so called cancer research over the last century; the result: a hundred years ago cancer killed only 3% of the population, now it kills over 33%. Why? 2 reasons !. artificial substances are 'tested' omn animals, this will pass any poison or carcinogen and protect only the health of the company making the carcinogen. 2. the 'research' is almost always based on other species of animals. The result; millions of humans killed by cancer and no-one ever being sued for it.
"Animal experiments inevitably lead to human experiments" Dr Moniem a Fadali. Why? a substance which passes an animal test may or may not have the same effect in humans, therefore if a substance which has only passed an animal 'test' is given to a human that human is being experiemented on. That applies to all of us.


Anonymous: 2007-10-02 00:37:49

To quote the former scientific director of Huntingdon Life Sciences (a name which completely contradists what it really is) "The best guess for the correlation of human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" The report of the british pharmaceutical expert committee on drug toxicity stated "Information from one species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from the suffering because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually but the gain is to industry, not humanity." Report of the Medical Research Council, "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitavely from one species to any other species." The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." For over 1000 more quotes from honest doctord and scientists see "1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection" by Hans Ruesch at www.dlrm.org  Please do not suggest experimenting on people on death rowThe continuation of animal experiemnts has nothing to do with science, on the contrary it continues because it provides legal protection to industries which manufacture artificial substances. These substances do harm humans and the environment. Needless to say these industries do not want to be sued. So, while animal experiments are expensive compared to real scientific methods, they save industries vastly more than they cost. Over 85% of drugs which pass animal 'tests' fail in clinical human trials, this is proven on millions of animals a year.
This does not mean we need human experiments it means that animal experiments cause human experiments because they do not provide results applicable to humans, so humans exposed to animal 'tested' substances are indeed being experimented on.
The right way to test drugs is firstly human cell culture, we have them for over 120 parts of the human body, secondly micro-dosing in humans; this means giving micro amounts of a drug, too small to cause harm and then doing biopsies on the human and gradually increasing the dose. Why do drug co's not remove animal tests? No legal protection without them.
Once we inevitably have diseases from exposure to hundreds of thousands of artificial substances which have not passed a valid test we demand medical research. What do we get? More animal experiemnts. Humans and animals get similar diseases less that 2% of the time making them worthless for curing human disease. The result? Diseases are never cured, we have 30,000 of them now.


Anonymous: 2007-10-01 21:01:20

would you allow your son or daughter to be tested upon? would you allow you mum to? how would you feel when your father falls ill to a disease that could have been cured if the drug was tested? No-one likes animal suffering but what is the choice? we need to make advances in medical science to eradicate disease such as cancer and rightly (or wrongly) we NEED to keep testing on animals.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com