Animal Rights

[!ightoftruth]

i have just read this article in the bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.st m

I personally think that anyone with any link to huntingdon life sciences or any company which tests on animals is no better than anyone who profited from the holocaust because animal iis just as sick and pointless as the holocaust.

[edited by AB]

[!ightoftruth]

well i know first hand what thalidomide does one of uncles has a malformed arm due to thalidomide so i mostcertaiinly know of its effects!

[PhilBy]

A link(s) to all the proven fact you have will not take up no space at all lightoftruth :-)

[!ightoftruth]

im sorry but i dont understand your last post could you please clariify it

[PhilBy]

Everyone knows the effects lighoftruth, but the link you provided states that it is more proof against animal testing but fails to offer any sceintific evidence for its claims. Have you never questioned why a document should state claims like: "many doctors and scientists have been warning for a number of decades-animal experimentation misleads science" but does not name the many doctors or sceintists but just leaves you to readily accept this as a proven fact?

[PhilBy]

You said there would not be enough space for you to add all the facts you have, I was pointing out a link to that evidence would be not take up much space at all. I am of course presuming these facts have been published and are available on the www.

btw, I applaud your stance, I am merely trying to get you to look at eveidence from a less biased stand point than the anti animal research brigrade

[!ightoftruth]

i see your point but it is a paradoxiical one because the same thing can be used upon all the arguments for animal research. They site that many doctors and renowned scientists favour animal experiments but they too fail to name them.

It is all a matter of who you most readily believe. I myslef never believe what a corporation says. I belive to my very core that animal experimentation is unethical, unneccesary and unpredicable.

i just hope that one day what leanardo da vinci said will one day come true...

"there will come a day when man looks upon the killing of an animal in the same way he looks upon the murder of a an"

[!ightoftruth]

everything is biased. but some things just present there blatant bias in a nice pretty acceptable way

[!ightoftruth]

also i think you might find this link intersting
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/betray.htm

also if you fancy a change of scene you could read some very good books that can be found at www.vernoncoleman.com/downloads

i found the books linked as waems and ffa very insightful into the topic

[!ightoftruth]

That is why we have the united nations so that international law can be adheared to. I am not sayiing animal expperiments hould be banned in the UK i am saying they should be banned thoughout the world.

[Vivacia]

Shammydodger, in response to your statement;

I simply cannot respect the opinion of anybody who places the life of an animal on an equal footing with that of an upstanding member of the human race

I am not concerned whether you respect my opinion, I cannot respect the opinion of anyone who thinks an animal�s life is worth less than a human�s � a rather selfish view don�t you think?

QueenOfSheba in response to your statement;

So what would someone rather? Themselves or a relative suffer from one of the terrible diseases and conditions there are, cancer, EB, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc. rather than the very real possibility of discovering a cure for them through the sacrifice of some animals?

This is not a relevant question, it is hypothetical because there are non-animal techniques (which are proven to be more reliable) that can be used to test drugs instead, so noone has to choose between the two. But as you have asked a hypothetical question I would like to ask one in respose;
If a close relative of yours suffered from one of the diseases you listed would you sacrifice some humans (who you do not know) if there was a possibility of discovering a cure for the disease?

How do you think we have so many of the drugs that we use, knowing they're safe, to treat people with potentially fatal, but controllable conditions, diabetes, heart conditions, asthma etc?

As I have already asked; Please explain how these scientific advances occured as a direct result of animal testing? (just because a successful drug was tested on animals does not mean it actually help develop it in anyway). and if you can explain this please then tell me if you think non-animal techniques could not have been used to test instead?

[Vivacia]

cont..

QueenOfSheba in response to your statement;

How do you think we have so many of the drugs that we use, knowing they're safe, to treat people with potentially fatal, but controllable conditions, diabetes, heart conditions, asthma etc?

I repeat my question; Please explain how these scientific advances occured as a direct result of animal testing? (just because a successful drug was tested on animals does not mean it actually help develop it in anyway). and if you can explain this please then tell me if you think non-animal techniques could not have been used to test instead.

I appreciate !ightoftruth, that you care deeply about the animals, but sometimes, as hard as it is to swallow, things happen that we don't like, but it is ultimately for the greater good.

The greater good for who? and if you mean humans you are incorrect � animal testing can actually be dangerous to humans - In 1998 an American medical journal concluded that 106,000 deaths PER YEAR in the US alone were caused by medical drugs passed safe on animals. A UK medical journal estimated 70,000 people in England each year are killed or seriously disabled by medical drugs, yet all of these pass animal tests. there can be huge differences in the responses to drug effects in humans and other animals. Aspirin is used as a relatively safe and effective painkiller for humans but can be fatal to cats; Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic in humans and yet it can kill guinea pigs; Arsenic is very dangerous for humans but does not present the same level of threat to rats, mice or sheep; insulin, a drug used safely by people with diabetes, can produce terrible deformities in mice, rabbits and chickens.

[Vivacia]

admarlow in response to your posts;

How come people usually care about nice cute fluffy animals, we never hear about things like snakes, snails , sluggs, frogs, only Monkeys, Mice etc.

Noone on this thread so far has said that they do not care about animals such as snakes, snails , sluggs, frogs, have they? So what are you basing this on?

who can even listen to animal welfare groups when they do things like this...

So are you suggesting that we shouldn�t be concerned about animal welfare because of the actions of a minority of extremists? (and yes it is the minority you just don�t hear as much about the people who campaign for animals rights without using threats , violence etc)

ok lot, how would you have gone about this in 1889? In 1889 Joseph von Mering and Oskar Minkowski showed that removing the pancreas from the dog produced diabetes�.

Whether or not this is correct, it is not relevant � as you may have noticed technology has developed a great deal since then and there are now alternative non-animal tests.

[Vivacia]

Philby in response to your post;

Would I be right in presuming that the anti animal research lot would like to see more stories like this in the news......

I can only speak for my self, and my answer is no, I would not rather see humans die as a result of testing, to me it�s the same, not worse, than animal testing the difference is humans have a choice and the animals sadly do not.

[saffyj]

get a life, get a real cause, do you agree with those degenerates digging up people's remains? i love animals but you people are sick!

[shammydodger]

Thalidomide

I refer people to my earlier post about the effects of thalidomide. It consists of two distinct isomers. The original drug which caused all the problems was a mixture of these two isomers. One of the isomers in the mixture was subsequently found to be responsible for the deformities seen in new borns. New techniques have allowed the two isomers to be separated, and the benign isomer (i.e the isomer that was not responsible for the deformities) was, the last I heard, showing great promise (being tested on substantial quantities of ugly rats) as a treatment for various ailments.

But a**holes who advocate the murder of law-abiding members of the public, without the courage to carry out their "convictions", will not inform you of such facts.

[PhilBy]

Vivacia, Can you please supply the sceintific research ( not just someones opinion ) of these non animal techniques which have been proven to be more relaible. I have already read what I consider half truths that go on about how some certain species of rats, rabbitts monkeys etc do not show the same effects as a human would, but unfortunately that is where they always end, they never go on to tell you that eventually a match was found... I believe with thalidomide that came when they started testing New Zealand White rabbitts. What I'm trying to say is what I feel is happening here is that the anti animal research are looking at animal research results, cherry picking the paragraphs that suit their argument best and pass it on as some 'here is the proof' evidence .............. If you look deeper with an open mind you find many of their claims just do not stand up. Try it yourself if you like, play the devils advocate for a week, fully research the facts given from both sides and see if you notice if one side is more economic giving out proven facts.

A hypothetical question for you... You are trapped in a burning house with no means of escape, a fireman appears and can only take one to safety. Who would let him to take, a)Your 2yr old child or B) Your pet dog that has been your best friend for the last 5yrs?

[Vivacia]

Philby - I dont have time to post a detailed response right now so will reply fully tomorrow (i.e question re. proof) but in answer to your hypothetical question - I would obviously be a very hard decision to have to make but i would pick my child (i dont actually have children but as you say hypothetical), not because the child is human rather as opposed to a non-human animal but because i would have given birth to it and (hopefully) have a bond to it uncomparable than to any other being human or non human. if you asked me who i would choose to save over my child and, for example, a friends child i would obviously pick my kid. so what does that prove in relation to the animal testing debate?

[PhilBy]

OK then, lets change 'your child' to 'a child'. I ask this question after reading how you cannot respect the opinion of anyone who thinks an animals life is worth less than a humans ........ just wondered if you had truly thought through the implications of such a statement?

[admarlow]

Vivacia, people who have the same amount of empathy for animals as people (i.e. yourself) would be described as ANY psycologist as at least suffering from a mild form of psychosis, and possiably having pyschopathic tendancies. See ;ink below.....