Wolf History - Page 2

dreama · 11-01-2008, 09:21 PM

I was reading in a disabled rights website the other day to see what both parties had to offer the disabled.

This is a quote that I came up with that greatly concerned me.

Quote:
We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of

prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart

disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism

and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of

Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes.

So it seems Obama is going for extra funding in biomedical research.

Taken from here: http://jfactivist.typepad.com/jfacti...e-the-rnc.html

It concerns me so much that I've done a google and found more information here:

http://www.bioresearchonline.com/art...?VNETCOOKIE=NO (unfortunately it's not accessable for me but

from Google it said it was about Obama's stand on biomedical research)
http://www.highlighthealth.com/resou...nd-healthcare/
http://medical.bizcommunity.com/Arti...323/28521.html

Please note that all these sited are PRO animal testing so you will have to read between the lines. That is

to say Obama is their buddy and will help them torture more animals as part of the american tax increase

wheras Macain is going to reduce Biomedical research as part of his tax cuts. He also believes in an ethnical aproach to research.

This paricular quote stands out:

Quote:
"Obama's STEM agenda shows his commitment to investing in the physical and life sciences".

What I want to know is why is it not concerning anyone else?

Hear Again · 11-01-2008, 09:42 PM

My mother had terminal cancer and after watching her suffer for several months before her death, I've come to the conclusion that I completely support Obama's stance on biomedical research.

dreama · 11-01-2008, 10:18 PM

As you know my mum also had terminal cancer. Which makes me feel all the more strongly AGAINST animal based research. I felt we were being used by the big major cancer charities who did not lift a finger to help my mum.

This isn't to say I don't support ethnical cancer charites who use more up to date methods such as computer modelling, adult stem cells, etc... Every year on the aniversery of her death I donate to various cancer charites but I make sure they are non animal testing first. Not just because animal testing is unethnical. It's irrelivant too. If it wasn't for animal based research my mum would have stood so much better chances of being cured.

Daredevel7 · 11-01-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

This isn't to say I don't support ethnical cancer charites who use more up to date methods such as computer modelling, adult stem cells, etc... Every year on the aniversery of her death I donate to various cancer charites but I make sure they are non animal testing first. Not just because animal testing is unethnical. It's irrelivant too. If it wasn't for animal based research my mum would have stood so much better chances of being cured.

Let me if I get this straight.. if there were no animal testing, your mom's cancer would have had a better chance of getting cured? Not seeing the reasoning here. You don't believe in animal testing? Fine I accept that, but I don't see how it INTERFERES or DELAYS with the process of curing cancer? I don't like animal testing much but only a handful of people will do experimental testing, and it simply is not as efficient as testing 100 hamsters at the same time for 100 different possible cures. When it comes to finding cures, I am for animal testing. But if it comes to "Let's see if this shampoo is bad for the skin!", screw you, test it on yourself.

Hear Again · 11-01-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Let me if I get this straight.. if there were no animal testing, your mom's cancer would have had a better chance of getting cured? Not seeing the reasoning here. You don't believe in animal testing? Fine I accept that, but I don't see how it INTERFERES or DELAYS with the process of curing cancer? I don't like animal testing much but only a handful of people will do experimental testing, and it simply is not as efficient as testing 100 hamsters at the same time for 100 different possible cures. When it comes to finding cures, I am for animal testing. But if it comes to "Let's see if this shampoo is bad for the skin!", screw you, test it on yourself.

My thoughts exactly, Daredevel.

Wokamuka · 11-01-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Let me if I get this straight.. if there were no animal testing, your mom's cancer would have had a better chance of getting cured? Not seeing the reasoning here. You don't believe in animal testing? Fine I accept that, but I don't see how it INTERFERES or DELAYS with the process of curing cancer? I don't like animal testing much but only a handful of people will do experimental testing, and it simply is not as efficient as testing 100 hamsters at the same time for 100 different possible cures. When it comes to finding cures, I am for animal testing. But if it comes to "Let's see if this shampoo is bad for the skin!", screw you, test it on yourself.

Animal testing DELAYS human testing. I can say that, for sure. A mother, who will die because there is no "research" on her treatment. A father, who will die, because his treatment is not found to be "understanding" with a bunch of monkeys (it would kill him). Human life is the priority, folks. HUMAN is the PRIORITY.

Thinking that humans are not the priority means you think less of yourself.

Daredevel7 · 11-01-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wokamuka

Animal testing DELAYS human testing. I can say that, for sure. A mother, who will die because there is no "research" on her treatment. A father, who will die, because his treatment is not found to be "understanding" with a bunch of monkeys (it would kill him). Human life is the priority, folks. HUMAN is the PRIORITY.

Thinking that humans are not the priority means you think less of yourself.

I honestly do not understand this. Do you think scientists PREFER testing on monkeys rather than humans? If it were up to them, they would take 100 humans over animals ANY DAY. They can't for the following reasons: Liability and lack of volunteers. Human testing is like a gem to them, they take advantage of that opportunity when they can. Animal testing is just something that is "the next best thing".

I really am trying to understand this "delay" stuff. I don't see it at all.

Wokamuka · 11-02-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I honestly do not understand this. Do you think scientists PREFER testing on monkeys rather than humans? If it were up to them, they would take 100 humans over animals ANY DAY. They can't for the following reasons: Liability and lack of volunteers. Human testing is like a gem to them, they take advantage of that opportunity when they can. Animal testing is just something that is "the next best thing".

I really am trying to understand this "delay" stuff. I don't see it at all.

I have a new medicine. I'm gonna test it (along with a theory). So, I'm gonna test it on a bunch of animals that, yes, die and survive. I'd learn what works.

You'd prefer that I'd test it on a bunch of humans that, yes, die, and, perhaps, survive? My objective, as a human, is that humans are a priority - above all else.

What is your priority? Animals over humans?

Daredevel7 · 11-02-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wokamuka

I have a new medicine. I'm gonna test it (along with a theory). So, I'm gonna test it on a bunch of animals that, yes, die and survive. I'd learn what works.

You'd prefer that I'd test it on a bunch of humans that, yes, die, and, perhaps, survive? My objective, as a human, is that humans are a priority - above all else.

What is your priority? Animals over humans?

I am so confused. I think you, dreama, and I are on totally different pages. A priority for what? being cured or being tested? I prefer animal testing over human testing, but what I don't understand is what dreama said "Not just because animal testing is unethnical. It's irrelivant too. If it wasn't for animal based research my mum would have stood so much better chances of being cured." Dreama was saying that animal testing GETS IN THE WAY of finding a cure. I'm asking how is this possible??

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

I was reading in a disabled rights website the other day to see what both parties had to offer the disabled.

This is a quote that I came up with that greatly concerned me.

Quote:
We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of

prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart

disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism

and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of

Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes.

So it seems Obama is going for extra funding in biomedical research.

Taken from here: http://jfactivist.typepad.com/jfacti...e-the-rnc.html

It concerns me so much that I've done a google and found more information here:

http://www.bioresearchonline.com/art...?VNETCOOKIE=NO (unfortunately it's not accessable for me but

from Google it said it was about Obama's stand on biomedical research)
http://www.highlighthealth.com/resou...nd-healthcare/
http://medical.bizcommunity.com/Arti...323/28521.html

Please note that all these sited are PRO animal testing so you will have to read between the lines. That is

to say Obama is their buddy and will help them torture more animals as part of the american tax increase

wheras Macain is going to reduce Biomedical research as part of his tax cuts. He also believes in an ethnical aproach to research.

This paricular quote stands out:

Quote:
"Obama's STEM agenda shows his commitment to investing in the physical and life sciences".

What I want to know is why is it not concerning anyone else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

My mother had terminal cancer and after watching her suffer for several months before her death, I've come to the conclusion that I completely support Obama's stance on biomedical research.

As do I. If it weren't for medical research, I would not be alive.

When I was six years old, I developed a massive systemic infection that affected the shunt I have that filters fluid off my brain. It had to come out because it was killing me slowly. I had developed sepsis and was in a coma. I was given a ZERO chance of survival unless they removed the shunt and replaced it; only problem was there was only a limited amount of places they could divert the fluid to. The shunt was already directing the fluid to my excretory system and that was no longer an option. Fortunately for me, there was an experimental procedure where they replaced my neuro-peritoneal shunt with a neuro-cardiac shunt. In laymen's terms, this is directing the fluid into my bloodstream. At the time, I was only the 5th child to have this procedure. I was also only the third child to survive it. The odds sucks. Two of the children who they had attempted this on were dead. Two were alive, but came out of the surgery brain damaged.

Fast foward 30 yrs or so, I still have the shunt that was placed and I'm doing well. The procedure itself is not real common because it's still considered risky, but it's an option for people when appropriate.

Most of you know how I feel about abortion and my views in general regarding the right to die, but I'm also for medical research. It saves lives. It saved mine.

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

As do I. If it weren't for medical research, I would not be alive.

When I was six years old, I developed a massive systemic infection that affected the shunt I have that filters fluid off my brain. It had to come out because it was killing me slowly. I had developed sepsis and was in a coma. I was given a ZERO chance of survival unless they removed the shunt and replaced it; only problem was there was only a limited amount of places they could divert the fluid to. The shunt was already directing the fluid to my excretory system and that was no longer an option. Fortunately for me, there was an experimental procedure where they replaced my neuro-peritoneal shunt with a neuro-cardiac shunt. In laymen's terms, this is directing the fluid into my bloodstream. At the time, I was only the 5th child to have this procedure. I was also only the third child to survive it. The odds sucks. Two of the children who they had attempted this on were dead. Two were alive, but came out of the surgery brain damaged.

Fast foward 30 yrs or so, I still have the shunt that was placed and I'm doing well. The procedure itself is not real common because it's still considered risky, but it's an option for people when appropriate.

Most of you know how I feel about abortion and my views in general regarding the right to die, but I'm also for medical research. It saves lives. It saved mine.

What a powerful story, OB. Thanks for sharing it.

I could say the same thing about myself. As I've mentioned before, I was born prematurely (I weighed 2 pounds and almost died 3 times). If it were not for biomedical research, what would the chances of my survival been? ZERO. Without the various medications that were given to me while in the NICU to keep me alive, I would have had absolutely *no* hope for survival.

Jiro · 11-03-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

As do I. If it weren't for medical research, I would not be alive.

When I was six years old, I developed a massive systemic infection that affected the shunt I have that filters fluid off my brain. It had to come out because it was killing me slowly. I had developed sepsis and was in a coma. I was given a ZERO chance of survival unless they removed the shunt and replaced it; only problem was there was only a limited amount of places they could divert the fluid to. The shunt was already directing the fluid to my excretory system and that was no longer an option. Fortunately for me, there was an experimental procedure where they replaced my neuro-peritoneal shunt with a neuro-cardiac shunt. In laymen's terms, this is directing the fluid into my bloodstream. At the time, I was only the 5th child to have this procedure. I was also only the third child to survive it. The odds sucks. Two of the children who they had attempted this on were dead. Two were alive, but came out of the surgery brain damaged.

Fast foward 30 yrs or so, I still have the shunt that was placed and I'm doing well. The procedure itself is not real common because it's still considered risky, but it's an option for people when appropriate.

Most of you know how I feel about abortion and my views in general regarding the right to die, but I'm also for medical research. It saves lives. It saved mine.

If I remember correctly - this technique of shunting was invented by this black guy who performed experiments on dogs.

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

What a powerful story, OB. Thanks for sharing it.

I could say the same thing about myself. As I've mentioned before, I was born prematurely (I weighed 2 pounds and almost died 3 times). If it were not for biomedical research, what would the chances of my survival been? ZERO. Without the various medications that were given to me while in the NICU to keep me alive, I would have had absolutely *no* hope for survival.

Thank you. I feel strongly about certain things. Medical research is one of them because of stories like yours and mine. Without the advances in biomedical research, we simply would not have survived.

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

If I remember correctly - this technique of shunting was invented by this black guy who performed experiments on dogs.

I wouldn't know. I do know that I'm thankful for it.

dreama · 11-03-2008, 08:26 PM

Medical reasearch which does not need to involve animal testing. Animal testing destroys lives. It doesn't save any. Sure there has been medical advances DESPITE animal testing. Since after they finished testing animals there has to be clinical trials involving research on humnans. Sometimes it goes well. Sometimes it doesn't. I think their would be a lot more advances if animals were withdrawn from the process altogether.

dreama · 11-03-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wokamuka

I have a new medicine. I'm gonna test it (along with a theory). So, I'm gonna test it on a bunch of animals that, yes, die and survive. I'd learn what works.

You'd prefer that I'd test it on a bunch of humans that, yes, die, and, perhaps, survive? My objective, as a human, is that humans are a priority - above all else.

What is your priority? Animals over humans?

No. Humans and animals should BOTH have rights. Nobody deserves to be tortured in laboritories. End of story.

It's not as if anything has ever been gained from animal research anyway. Both the Nazi germans and the Japanese used prisoners of war to test things on. Which also helped with medical advancements.

Now there are several new advances. So Animal based research has never been necessary.

We should speak up for those without the ability to speak for themselves.

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Medical reasearch which does not need to involve animal testing. Animal testing destroys lives. It doesn't save any. Sure there has been medical advances DESPITE animal testing. Since after they finished testing animals there has to be clinical trials involving research on humnans. Sometimes it goes well. Sometimes it doesn't. I think their would be a lot more advances if animals were withdrawn from the process altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

No. Humans and animals should BOTH have rights. Nobody deserves to be tortured in laboritories. End of story.

It's not as if anything has ever been gained from animal research anyway. Both the Nazi germans and the Japanese used prisoners of war to test things on. Which also helped with medical advancements.

Now there are several new advances. So Animal based research has never been necessary.

We should speak up for those without the ability to speak for themselves.

Jiro · 11-03-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Medical reasearch which does not need to involve animal testing. Animal testing destroys lives. It doesn't save any. Sure there has been medical advances DESPITE animal testing. Since after they finished testing animals there has to be clinical trials involving research on humnans. Sometimes it goes well. Sometimes it doesn't. I think their would be a lot more advances if animals were withdrawn from the process altogether.

SUCH AS...............? If you want to preach that, please come up with some alternative solutions otherwise you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You speak from your emotion, not logic. It never works well to convince people. Please give us an alternative solution.

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 09:42 PM

dreama,

What you are debating is an endless circular argument. If there were no animal research, how can medical research be conducted? As I've said in a previous post, we can't experiment on humans because of liability, so how else do you propose we conduct this research?

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

Thank you. I feel strongly about certain things. Medical research is one of them because of stories like yours and mine. Without the advances in biomedical research, we simply would not have survived.

Exactly.

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 09:47 PM

Medical research that does not involve animal testing is *not* medical research. In fact, it's not research at all.

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

Medical research that does not involve animal testing is *not* medical research. In fact, it's not research at all.

That's exactly right. I have no problem sacrificing a monkey if it's going to help mankind. Same with any other animal. I consider medical research a necessary evil.

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

That's exactly right. I have no problem sacrificing a monkey if it's going to help mankind. Same with any other animal. I consider medical research a necessary evil.

Some people who place the rights of animals above humans are the equivalent of PETA members.

Jiro · 11-03-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

Some people who place the rights of animals above humans are the equivalent of PETA members.

I guess that's ok. it's their choice. i think we should not be beating on dreama. she has her reason and we have ours. However - I'm just glad that their choice is not recognized by government to create the law.

Hear Again · 11-03-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I guess that's ok. it's their choice. i think we should not be beating on dreama. she has her reason and we have ours. However - I'm just glad that their choice is not recognized by government to create the law.

True.

Oceanbreeze · 11-03-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

Some people who place the rights of animals above humans are the equivalent of PETA members.

In desperate need of pharmaceuticals, yes.

Hear Again · 11-04-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

In desperate need of pharmaceuticals, yes.

Yes -- STRONG pharmaceuticals.

Jiro · 11-04-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

Yes -- STRONG pharmaceuticals.

cocaine's hell of a drug, eh?

Oceanbreeze · 11-04-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

cocaine's hell of a drug, eh?

Nah. Haldol, baby!

Hear Again · 11-04-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

Nah. Haldol, baby!

No kidding! I was given Haldol when I was in the hospital 2 years ago and it knocked me completely on my a**!

11-01-2008, 09:21 PM	#31 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	I was reading in a disabled rights website the other day to see what both parties had to offer the disabled. This is a quote that I came up with that greatly concerned me. Quote: We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes. So it seems Obama is going for extra funding in biomedical research. Taken from here: http://jfactivist.typepad.com/jfacti...e-the-rnc.html It concerns me so much that I've done a google and found more information here: http://www.bioresearchonline.com/art...?VNETCOOKIE=NO (unfortunately it's not accessable for me but from Google it said it was about Obama's stand on biomedical research) http://www.highlighthealth.com/resou...nd-healthcare/ http://medical.bizcommunity.com/Arti...323/28521.html Please note that all these sited are PRO animal testing so you will have to read between the lines. That is to say Obama is their buddy and will help them torture more animals as part of the american tax increase wheras Macain is going to reduce Biomedical research as part of his tax cuts. He also believes in an ethnical aproach to research. This paricular quote stands out: Quote: "Obama's STEM agenda shows his commitment to investing in the physical and life sciences". What I want to know is why is it not concerning anyone else? __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-01-2008, 09:42 PM	#32 (permalink)
Hear Again Each day is a gift. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 20,073 Blog Entries: 6	My mother had terminal cancer and after watching her suffer for several months before her death, I've come to the conclusion that I completely support Obama's stance on biomedical research. __________________ Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE (Implanted: 12/22/04 \| Activated: 1/18/05) Right ear - Nucleus Freedom (Implanted: 2/1/06 \| Activated: 3/1/06) Deafblind/Postlingual

11-01-2008, 10:18 PM	#33 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	As you know my mum also had terminal cancer. Which makes me feel all the more strongly AGAINST animal based research. I felt we were being used by the big major cancer charities who did not lift a finger to help my mum. This isn't to say I don't support ethnical cancer charites who use more up to date methods such as computer modelling, adult stem cells, etc... Every year on the aniversery of her death I donate to various cancer charites but I make sure they are non animal testing first. Not just because animal testing is unethnical. It's irrelivant too. If it wasn't for animal based research my mum would have stood so much better chances of being cured. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-03-2008, 08:26 PM	#45 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,018	Medical reasearch which does not need to involve animal testing. Animal testing destroys lives. It doesn't save any. Sure there has been medical advances DESPITE animal testing. Since after they finished testing animals there has to be clinical trials involving research on humnans. Sometimes it goes well. Sometimes it doesn't. I think their would be a lot more advances if animals were withdrawn from the process altogether. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-03-2008, 09:42 PM	#49 (permalink)
Hear Again Each day is a gift. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 20,073 Blog Entries: 6	dreama, What you are debating is an endless circular argument. If there were no animal research, how can medical research be conducted? As I've said in a previous post, we can't experiment on humans because of liability, so how else do you propose we conduct this research? __________________ Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE (Implanted: 12/22/04 \| Activated: 1/18/05) Right ear - Nucleus Freedom (Implanted: 2/1/06 \| Activated: 3/1/06) Deafblind/Postlingual

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-03-2008, 09:47 PM	#51 (permalink)
Hear Again Each day is a gift. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 20,073 Blog Entries: 6	Medical research that does not involve animal testing is not medical research. In fact, it's not research at all. __________________ Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE (Implanted: 12/22/04 \| Activated: 1/18/05) Right ear - Nucleus Freedom (Implanted: 2/1/06 \| Activated: 3/1/06) Deafblind/Postlingual

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode