Alternatives to Animal testing.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 09:51 PM

It is often assumed that the only alternative to Animal testing is human testing. This already happens since animals and humans function differantly. New drugs must be tested on humans after the animal testing has been completed. Far from improving medical progress, animal testing has been shown to hold research back. The more up to date testing using computer modeling is far more preferable.

Here is just one example of successes without Animal testing.
Read here:

Quote:

TMS and brain function

Dr Hadwen Trust Research Fellowship 1998 — 2001
Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to model brain damage in human subjects
V Walsh, M Rushworth and A Ellison, then at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford

This Dr Hadwen Trust research grant to develop transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has had wide-reaching applications, as the technique is now used internationally in neuroscience research, often in place of non-human primates.

Dr Hadwen Trust's Science Room: Success stories

dreama · 11-18-2008, 10:07 PM

More information about humane research can be found here: Winter2007Newsletter
::: Alternatives Research & Development Foundation :::
News

jillio · 11-18-2008, 10:15 PM

This is just absurd, dreama. Of course human trials are conducted following the animal trials. The animal trials are intended to insure the safety of the medication for human use. The human trials test the effectiveness of the medication for the condition it is designed to treat, once animal trials have determined it to be safe to be introduced into the human body.

You may be comfortable taking a medication that has never been tested for safety nor approved for human use, but I doubt seriously that many people would be comfortable doing so. The purpose of a medication is to cure or treat an illness, not kill someone because it is unapproved as safe for human consumption.

BTW, they are using humans to test the transcranial magnetic stimulation. That is better than primates?
What about experimental surgical procedures? Do you want to be the first living being that the procedure is tried on, or would you prefer that it be perfected before the surgeon cuts into you?

Oceanbreeze · 11-18-2008, 10:23 PM

[QUOTE=jillio;1160307]This is just absurd, dreama. Of course human trials are conducted following the animal trials. The animal trials are intended to insure the safety of the medication for human use. The human trials test the effectiveness of the medication for the condition it is designed to treat, once animal trials have determined it to be safe to be introduced into the human body.

You may be comfortable taking a medication that has never been tested for safety nor approved for human use, but I doubt seriously that many people would be comfortable doing so. The purpose of a medication is to cure or treat an illness, not kill someone because it is unapproved as safe for human consumption.

What about experimental surgical procedures? Do you want to be the first living being that the procedure is tried on, or would you prefer that it be perfected before the surgeon cuts into you?[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. I don't know if you saw one of my posts discussing experimentation, but I made a comment supporting animal testing, and it had to do with having an experimental procedure when I was six that saved my life. At the time I had the procedure, there had only been four other children who had undergone the procedure before me. Two had lived, but two had died. I was the fifth child to undergo the procedure in this country and the third child to have survived it. There was also issues with brain damage as well. One of the children that survived came out of surgery severely brain damaged due to lack of oxygen.

What I am describing is a bit different than what you said, but I agree with you completely. I also am extremely grateful for the experimentation that is done. I would be extremely wary of procedures where there was no testing of them on animal models. You just cannot come close to a comparison between data conducted using animals and those using computer models. I would much prefer testing be done on animals.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

There is alarming evidence that animal tests fail to protect us:

Six young men at Northwick Park hospital were nearly killed by a drug which they were given because it had been ‘proved safe’ in monkeys
Arthritis drug Vioxx – the greatest drug catastrophe in history – killed up to 140,000 people after being ‘proved safe’ in animals, including monkeys
92% of new drugs successful in animal studies go on to fail in clinical trials, as at Northwick Park – sometimes injuring or killing volunteers and patients
Extensive studies of animal tests’ ability to predict drugs’ and chemicals’ potential to cause cancer and birth defects have found them to be ineffective
Scientists are increasingly lamenting the failings of animal studies. Cancer Research UK acknowledges: ‘We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans’. See more quotes here

Safer Medicines Campaign

dreama · 11-18-2008, 10:39 PM

If you read my links you will find your questions answered. Please note that these are organistations against animal testing on Scientific grounds.

Since animal testing is misleading and doesn't promote anything then we HAVE to test on humans at some point anyway. Once they've finished torturing animals.

So your questions make no sense to me.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Safer Medicines Campaign

Vioxx passed clinical trials in humans, as well. Otherwise it would never have made it to the market.

Vioxx was voluntarily removed from the market by the manufacturer because it was associated with an increased risk of heart attack in some patients.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

If you read my links you will find your questions answered. Please note that these are organistations against animal testing on Scientific grounds.

Since animal testing is misleading and doesn't promote anything then we HAVE to test on humans at some point anyway. Once they've finished torturing animals.

So your questions make no sense to me.

Its not my questions that fail to make sense, but your reasoning.

Hwy99 · 11-18-2008, 10:51 PM

I just wondering if the humans are welcome to volunteer for being tested, maybe to be paid?

I know it's strange question, but it will be strange if it's wrong to test on the human, while it's ok for animals to be test, you know what I mean..

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:09 PM

More links:
PCRM >> Research >> Animal Experimentation Issues >> PCRM Position Paper on Animal Research
Scientific Anti- Vivisectionism ->
Americans For Medical Advancement | AFMA

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

I just wondering if the humans are welcome to volunteer for being tested, maybe to be paid?

I know it's strange question, but it will be strange if it's wrong to test on the human, while it's ok for animals to be test, you know what I mean..

I think human volunteers in trials are paid. Although unfortunately they are sometimes misled to believe the tests are safer then they are because they were tested on animals first.

Unfortunately things that have worked ok in animals do not work at all in human trials.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

I just wondering if the humans are welcome to volunteer for being tested, maybe to be paid?

I know it's strange question, but it will be strange if it's wrong to test on the human, while it's ok for animals to be test, you know what I mean..

All drugs, before they can be sold, are subject to human trials. This is after animal trials has been done to develop and refine the medications and make sure that it is relatively safe for humans. Many drugs are tested in a double blind study where the volunteers have the disease the drug is being tested for, and most of these people are paid a small amount. Usually to cover time and travel expenses.

There are other experimental treatments that are available only at the hospital where they are being developed. Someone, for instance, who has a cancer that has not responded to conventional treatment, and the patient is dying will sometimes be offered the opportunity to engage in an experimental treatment. However, the restrictions for these are tight. And always, always, the individual has to be able to give fully informed consent for participation.

Oceanbreeze · 11-18-2008, 11:15 PM

Dreama,

Why do you insist on posting these threads that end up going nowhere? You're really not going to convince anybody to re-think their position. If someone is against animal testing, they will be. If someone is supportive of animal testing, they will be. So, the circular argument ensues and goes on for pages until a mod comes along and locks the thread and you're argument has yet again failed to sway anyone.

Why can't you accept that each person has their own views and you're not going to change them?

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Its not my questions that fail to make sense, but your reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning. Do I need to draw diagrames to help you understand.

Humans and animals respond differantly in testing so what works with animals does NOT neccessary work with humans.
Far from advancing science. Animal testing has actually held research back.
Doctors 120 years ago have seen this fact yet animal testing still goes on.

Exactly what is so hard to understand about that?

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

I think human volunteers in trials are paid. Although unfortunately they are sometimes misled to believe the tests are safer then they are because they were tested on animals first.

Unfortunately things that have worked ok in animals do not work at all in human trials.

This is totally and completely innaccurate. Fully informed consent is required for participation in any clinical trial. Failure to obtain fully informed consent leaves the researcher open to legal prosecution, ethics violations, and loss of license.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning. Do I need to draw diagrames to help you understand.

Humans and animals respond differantly in testing so what works with animals does NOT neccessary work with humans.
Far from advancing science. Animal testing has actually held research back.
Doctors 120 years ago have seen this fact yet animal testing still goes on.

Exactly what is so hard to understand about that?

There is plenty wrong with your reasoning. So yeah, draw me a diagram. That I have got to see.

I would prefer that we not send medicine back 120 years. Many advances have been made that have resulted in lives saved and quality of life improved for millions. And we have animal testing to thank for those saved human lives and improved quality of life.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

More links:
PCRM >> Research >> Animal Experimentation Issues >> PCRM Position Paper on Animal Research
Scientific Anti- Vivisectionism ->
Americans For Medical Advancement | AFMA

A position paper is no more than opinion. It is not support for anything.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

Dreama,

Why do you insist on posting these threads?

Quote:

From Jillo: I'm still waiting for a solution to medical experimentation on animals from you. I'm anxious to know whether you think we should experiment on humans instead, or just let people die from curable illnesses?

So I'm just providing links that prove my point. Have you actually had a look at any of the links?

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

So I'm just providing links that prove my point. Have you actually had a look at any of the links?

I have. One is a charitable website. One provides a position paper. I even read some of the so called "scientific" articles that were listed on the charitable website. Would not stand up to the scrutiny of a professional, I can guarantee you.

You have proven nothing. You have to provide fact, statistics, data, hard science to prove a point such as the one you are attempting to make. Let's see some hard medical evidence. So far all you have provided is a bunch of bleeding heart websites attempting to gain paid membership so they can stay afloat. That is proof only of the fact that the gullible still exist.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

There is plenty wrong with your reasoning. So yeah, draw me a diagram. That I have got to see.

I would prefer that we not send medicine back 120 years. Many advances have been made that have resulted in lives saved and quality of life improved for millions. And we have animal testing to thank for those saved human lives and improved quality of life.

No, I'm afraid that's where you are mistaken. Medical reasearch has advanced DESPITE animal testing. NOT because of.

Why is your point of view more valid then mine. It is just mindlessly repeating the claims made by vivisectionists.

Yes, we have advanced in the last 120 years but this isn't down to animal testing. Humans have been tested since then and other methods have been created too so I'm afraid your logic is completely false.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I have. One is a charitable website. One provides a position paper. I even read some of the so called "scientific" articles that were listed on the charitable website. Would not stand up to the scrutiny of a professional, I can guarantee you.

You have proven nothing. You have to provide fact, statistics, data, hard science to prove a point such as the one you are attempting to make. Let's see some hard medical evidence. So far all you have provided is a bunch of bleeding heart websites attempting to gain paid membership so they can stay afloat. That is proof only of the fact that the gullible still exist.

Can YOU provide hard facts to prove that torturing animals has done anything other then increased animal AND HUMAN suffering?

Hwy99 · 11-18-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

I think human volunteers in trials are paid. Although unfortunately they are sometimes misled to believe the tests are safer then they are because they were tested on animals first.

Unfortunately things that have worked ok in animals do not work at all in human trials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

All drugs, before they can be sold, are subject to human trials. This is after animal trials has been done to develop and refine the medications and make sure that it is relatively safe for humans. Many drugs are tested in a double blind study where the volunteers have the disease the drug is being tested for, and most of these people are paid a small amount. Usually to cover time and travel expenses.

There are other experimental treatments that are available only at the hospital where they are being developed. Someone, for instance, who has a cancer that has not responded to conventional treatment, and the patient is dying will sometimes be offered the opportunity to engage in an experimental treatment. However, the restrictions for these are tight. And always, always, the individual has to be able to give fully informed consent for participation.

Ohh now I got it, thank you both

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

the danger of relying on animal experiments is most vividly illustrated by the growing list of animal-tested drugs which are withdrawn or restricted because of unexpected, often fatal, side-effects in people. Examples include Eraldin, Opren, chloramphenicol, clioquinol, Flosint, Ibufenac and Zelmid (Sharpe 1988). Apart from drug withdrawal or restriction, unexpected reactions may lead to warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the medical press (Sharpe 1988). In the case ICI's heart drug, Eraldin, there were serious eye problems, including blindness, and there were 23 deaths.
Ultimately ICI compensated more than 1000 victims (Office of Health Economics 1980). Yet animal experiments had given no warning of the dangers (Inman 1977) and even after the drug was withdrawn in 1976 the harmful effects could not be reproduced in laboratory animals (Weatherall 1982). The antibiotic chloramphenicol, passed safe after animal experiments, was later discovered to cause aplastic anemia, which often proved fatal (Venning 1983).
The British Medical Journal (1952) reports how the drug was thoroughly tested on animals, producing nothing worse than transient anemia in dogs given the drug for long periods by injection, and nothing at all when given orally. Scientists have recently suggested the use of human bone-marrow cells as a more reliable means of detecting such toxic effects prior to clinical trials (Gyte and Williams 1985).
In 1982 the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Opren, was withdrawn in Britain after 3500 reports of side-effects including 61 deaths mainly through liver damage (British Medical Journal, 1982). Prolonged tests in rhesus monkeys, in which the animals received up to seven times the maximum tolerated human dose for a year, revealed no evidence of toxicity (Dista Products Ltd 1980). Furthermore, animal tests cited in the company's literature make no mention of the photosensitive skins reactions which proved such a problem for patients (Dista Products Ltd 1980).
During the 1960's at least 3500 young asthmatics died in Britain following the use of isoprenaline aerosol inhalers (Inman 1980). Isoprenaline is a powerful asthma drug and deaths were reported in countries using a particularly concentrated form of aerosol which delivered 0,4mg of drug per spray (Stolley 1972). Animal tests had shown that a large doses increased the heart rate but not sufficiently to kill the animals. In fact cats could tolerate 175 times the dose found dangerous to asthmatics (Collins, et al., 1969).
Even after the event it proved difficult to reproduce the drug's harmful effects in animals (Carson, et al., 1971). Japan suffered a major epidemic of drug-induced disease in the case of clioquinol, the main ingredient of Ciba Geigy's antidiarrhoea drugs, Enterovioform and Maxaform (Lancet, 1977a). At least 10,000 people were victims of a new disease called SMON (subacute myelo-optic neuropathy), yet animal experiments carried out by the company revealed 'no evidence that clioquinol is neurotoxic' (Hess, et al., 1972).
Reliance in animal tests can therefore be dangerously misleading. In fact, what protection there is comes mainly from clinical trials where 95% of the drug passed safe and effective on the basis of animal tests are rejected (Medical World News, 1965). Nevertheless the problem appears less serious than it is, because side-effects are grossly under-reported (Lesser 1980): only about a dozen of the 3500 deaths linked with isoprenaline aerosol were reported by doctors at the time, while 11% of fatal reactions associated with anti-inflammatory drugs, phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone, were reported as such (Inman 1980).
Most adverse reactions which can occur in patients cannot be demonstrated, anticipated or avoided by the routine subacute and chronic toxicity experiment (Zbinden 1966). This is partly because animals do not have the potential to predict some of the most common or life-threatening effects (Welch 1967). For instance animals cannot tell us if they are suffering from nausea, dizziness, amnesia, headache, depression or other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, skin lesions, some blood disorders and many central nervous system effects are some of the more serious problems which once again cannot generally be demonstrated in animals. But even when such effects are excluded, toxicity tests can still prove misleading.
In 1962, the side-effects of six different drugs, reported during clinical practice, were compared with those originally seen in toxicity tests with rats and dogs (Litchfield 1962). The comparisons were restricted to those tests which animals have the potential to predict. Even so, of the 78 adverse reactions seen in patients, the majority (42) were not predicted in animal tests. In most cases, then, predictions based on animal experiments proved incorrect.
Another comparison this time based on 45 drugs, revealed that at best only one out of every four side-effects predicted by animal experiments actually occurred in patients (Fletcher 1978). Even then it is not possible to tell which predictions are accurate until human trials are commenced. Furthermore the report confirmed that many common side-effects cannot be predicted by animal tests at all: examples include nausea, headache, sweating, cramps, dry mouth, dizziness, and in some cases skin lesions and reduced blood pressure. But this study has an additional implication.
With most of the adverse reactions predicted by animal experiments not occurring in people, there is also the danger of unnecessarily rejecting potentially valuable medicines. A classic example is penicillin which, as Florey (1953) admitted, would in all probability have been discarded had it been tested on guinea-pigs, to whom it is highly toxic (Koppanyi and Avery 1966). But the good fortune did not end there. In order to save a seriously ill patient, Fleming wanted to inject penicillin into the spine but the possible results were unknown. Florey tried the experiment with a cat but there wasn't time to wait for the results if Fleming's patient was to have a chance. Fleming's patient received his injection and improved, but Florey's cat died (BBC 1981)!
Another case is digitalis. Although discovered without animal experiments, its more widespread use was delayed because tests on animals incorrectly predicted a dangerous rise in blood pressure (Beddow Bayly 1962). One of the most common animals used in toxicity tests is the rat, yet comparisons with humans reveal major differences in skin characteristics, respiratory parameters, the location of gut flora, B-glucurondase activity, plasma protein binding, biliary excretion, metabolism, allergic hypersensitivity and teratogenicity (Calabrese 1984).
Differences in respiratory parameters are particularly important in inhalation studies, where rats are used extensively. As 'high-risk' animal models used for respiratory and cardiovascular problems, rats are considered inappropriate for asthma, bronchitis and arteriosclerosis, but the species of choice for hypertension (Calabrese 1984). In fact the species most routinely used for toxicological studies are chosen not on consideration of their phylogenetic relationship to humans but on practical grounds of cost, breeding rate, litter size, ease of handling, resistance to intercurrent infections and laboratory tradition (Davies 1977).
One of the most important factors resulting in differences between the species is the speed and pattern of metabolism. Indeed reports show that variations in drug biotransformation are the rule rather than the exception (Levine 1978, Smith and Caldwell 1977, Zbinden 1963). Toxic drug effects which are not predicted by animal test may be seen in people when their metabolism is slower, resulting in longer exposure. But differences in the rate of biotransformation are only one aspect of the metabolic comparison. Of even greater importance is the route of metabolism.
Species variability here can result in poisonous effects which it would be impossible to predict by animal tests. A comparative study of 23 chemicals showed that in only four cases did rats and humans metabolise drugs in the same way (Smith and Caldwell 1977). One example is amphetamone, which is metabolised by the same route in humans, dogs and mice (although faster in the mouse) but by a different pathway in the rat and by still another route in the guinea-pig (Levine 1978).
These difficulties once again stress the need to assess new drugs in volunteers as early as possible. Bernard Brodie of Bethesda' National Heart Institute has stated (Brodie 1962): 'These problems highlight the importance for drug development of testing a drug in man as soon as possible to see whether its rate of metabolism makes it clinically practical. The practice of studying the physiological disposition of a drug in man may only after it is clearly the drug of choice in animals not only may prove shortsighted and time consuming, but also may result in relegating the best drug for man to the shelf for evermore'.

The Failure of Vivisection

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

No, I'm afraid that's where you are mistaken. Medical reasearch has advanced DESPITE animal testing. NOT because of.

Why is your point of view more valid then mine. It is just mindlessly repeating the claims made by vivisectionists.

Yes, we have advanced in the last 120 years but this isn't down to animal testing. Humans have been tested since then and other methods have been created too so I'm afraid your logic is completely false.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

jillio · 11-18-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

The Failure of Vivisection

Got anything recent? You are relying on information from 5o years ago in many instances. Move forward, dreama, step into the 21st century.

dreama · 11-18-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

References
(1)Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p6.
(2)'Animal toxicity studies: Their relevance to man', Lumley/Warner (Eds).
(3)SmithKline Beecham Internal report.
(4)Dr Vernon Coleman, 'Why Patients Never Win In Drugs Wars'.
(5)Ethical Consumer, Nov/Dec 1995, p24.
(6)Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p103.
(7)F. J. Di Carlo, 'Drug Metabolism Reviews' 15, pp409-13, quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p44.
(8)NAVS Campaigner, Jan/Feb 1988, p13.
(9)Prof Dennis Park, advice to WHO, speaking at Humane Research Trust Convention: quoted in 'Animals In Research' leaflet, Advocates for Animals.
(10)Pietro Croce Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, p43.
(11)E. J. Calabrese, 'Toxic susceptability: Male/female differences', quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p41.
(12)Laboratory Animals, vol.26 no.3, p159, quoted Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p33.
(13)Parke/Smith (eds), Drug Metabolism from Microbe to Man, quoted Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p45.
(14)AVA leaflet 'We can't change the past'.
(15)Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, pp22-24.
(16)'Access Denied' report, NAVS.
(17)Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34, 1969, quoted in Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p365.
(18)Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34, 1969, quoted in Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p365.
(19)Dr Vernon Coleman, 'Animal experiments kill people as well as animals'.
(20)Hans Ruesch, quoted in BAVA leaflet, 'After prolonged tests'.
(21)National Health Federation Bulletin, 1969.
(22)D. Icke, 'It doesn't have to be like this'.
(23)Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress, pp.12,91.
(24)Congress of Clinical Medicine, 1976. PC p14.
(25)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, pp175/6.
(26)Dr Hadwen 'The difficulties of Deguerre, p357. General Anaesthesia, Gray/Utting/Nunn, p152.
(27)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p364. 'Cancer', NAVS Campaigner Jan/Feb 1988. Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p9.
(28)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p361-362.
(29)Plan 2000, 'How much longer'.
(30)VIN Newsletter 2.
(31)Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, p22-24.
(32)Plan 2000 leaflet.
(33)Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p101.

The above was taken from VIN Newsletter 4
Produced by V.I.N., P O Box 223, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 5ZU.
Email: vivisectionkills@hotmail.com

33 Facts To Be Considered

dreama · 11-19-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

This has got nothing to do with fairy tales. You are distorting everything I say. If you actually READ my links properly you would see that they are logic and you and the vivisectionists ARENT.

And by the way Non animal testing IS moving into the 21st section.

You wonder why It's taken me so long to answer your question. Because I rarely read your posts these days. You just want to be proved right and you really don't care about logic.

These are views not from PETA but from Doctor's and Scientists. If you'd bothered to read ALL my links you would know but obviously you haven't. Non of my links are from PETA and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links.

You haven't produced any facts yourself. Hard or otherwise. Just parrotting vivisectionist talk. That's not fact. That's fiction and fairy tales.

jillio · 11-19-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

33 Facts To Be Considered

I asked for hard science, dreama. You do know what that is, don't you?

Oceanbreeze · 11-19-2008, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

Got that right. Medical Science saved my life. If it wasn't for the advances of medical science through animal experimentation, I would not be here. You cannot make me an more of a supporter than I am already; and you sure as hell aren't gonna sway me from what I believe.

jillio · 11-19-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

This has got nothing to do with fairy tales. You are distorting everything I say. If you actually READ my links properly you would see that they are logic and you and the vivisectionists ARENT.

And by the way Non animal testing IS moving into the 21st section.

You wonder why It's taken me so long to answer your question. Because I rarely read your posts these days. You just want to be proved right and you really don't care about logic.

These are views not from PETA but from Doctor's and Scientists. If you'd bothered to read ALL my links you would know but obviously you haven't. Non of my links are from PETA and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links.

You haven't produced any facts yourself. Hard or otherwise. Just parrotting vivisectionist talk. That's not fact. That's fiction and fairy tales.

Okay, dreama. You say that medical science has not been advanced by animal experimentation and study. Let's take a look at this little scientific fact:

Researchers have managed to grow a human ear on the back of a mouse through gene manipulation. This provides the knowledge and the skill to reproduce human organs and body parts that are lost to disease and accident. In fact, they can now grow, thanks to research of this type, a human bladder that can be used for transplantation purposes. Would you be willing to let them grow an ear on your back to further this type of advance that has the potential to help millions people? Then we could save all the sweet little mice.

Or, what about heart transplant...a procedure that saves thousands of lives every year. The first heart transplants were done in primates. The first heart transplant done in a human was using a baboon heart. As a consequence of this research, we have now perfected the procedure and are able to keep death from claiming thousands a year.

You really do need to inform yourself of the facts and stop reading the fairy tales you find in the bleeding heart websites.

And I care very much about logic. That is why I am compelled to point out the lack of logic in your thought process. I keep hoping that one day, the light bulb will go on.

11-18-2008, 10:07 PM	#2 (permalink)
dreama Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,017	More information about humane research can be found here: Winter2007Newsletter ::: Alternatives Research & Development Foundation ::: News __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-18-2008, 10:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Oceanbreeze Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: S. FL Posts: 9,967	[QUOTE=jillio;1160307]This is just absurd, dreama. Of course human trials are conducted following the animal trials. The animal trials are intended to insure the safety of the medication for human use. The human trials test the effectiveness of the medication for the condition it is designed to treat, once animal trials have determined it to be safe to be introduced into the human body. You may be comfortable taking a medication that has never been tested for safety nor approved for human use, but I doubt seriously that many people would be comfortable doing so. The purpose of a medication is to cure or treat an illness, not kill someone because it is unapproved as safe for human consumption. What about experimental surgical procedures? Do you want to be the first living being that the procedure is tried on, or would you prefer that it be perfected before the surgeon cuts into you?[/QUOTE] Interesting point. I don't know if you saw one of my posts discussing experimentation, but I made a comment supporting animal testing, and it had to do with having an experimental procedure when I was six that saved my life. At the time I had the procedure, there had only been four other children who had undergone the procedure before me. Two had lived, but two had died. I was the fifth child to undergo the procedure in this country and the third child to have survived it. There was also issues with brain damage as well. One of the children that survived came out of surgery severely brain damaged due to lack of oxygen. What I am describing is a bit different than what you said, but I agree with you completely. I also am extremely grateful for the experimentation that is done. I would be extremely wary of procedures where there was no testing of them on animal models. You just cannot come close to a comparison between data conducted using animals and those using computer models. I would much prefer testing be done on animals. __________________ "There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living." Last edited by Oceanbreeze; 11-18-2008 at 10:54 PM.

11-18-2008, 10:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
dreama Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,017	If you read my links you will find your questions answered. Please note that these are organistations against animal testing on Scientific grounds. Since animal testing is misleading and doesn't promote anything then we HAVE to test on humans at some point anyway. Once they've finished torturing animals. So your questions make no sense to me. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-18-2008, 11:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
dreama Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,017	More links: PCRM >> Research >> Animal Experimentation Issues >> PCRM Position Paper on Animal Research Scientific Anti- Vivisectionism -> Americans For Medical Advancement \| AFMA __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

11-18-2008, 11:15 PM	#13 (permalink)
Oceanbreeze Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: S. FL Posts: 9,967	Dreama, Why do you insist on posting these threads that end up going nowhere? You're really not going to convince anybody to re-think their position. If someone is against animal testing, they will be. If someone is supportive of animal testing, they will be. So, the circular argument ensues and goes on for pages until a mod comes along and locks the thread and you're argument has yet again failed to sway anyone. Why can't you accept that each person has their own views and you're not going to change them? __________________ "There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living."

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

11-18-2008, 10:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	This is just absurd, dreama. Of course human trials are conducted following the animal trials. The animal trials are intended to insure the safety of the medication for human use. The human trials test the effectiveness of the medication for the condition it is designed to treat, once animal trials have determined it to be safe to be introduced into the human body. You may be comfortable taking a medication that has never been tested for safety nor approved for human use, but I doubt seriously that many people would be comfortable doing so. The purpose of a medication is to cure or treat an illness, not kill someone because it is unapproved as safe for human consumption. BTW, they are using humans to test the transcranial magnetic stimulation. That is better than primates? What about experimental surgical procedures? Do you want to be the first living being that the procedure is tried on, or would you prefer that it be perfected before the surgeon cuts into you?

11-18-2008, 10:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
Hwy99 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: A town in middle of the rolling hills Posts: 6,141	I just wondering if the humans are welcome to volunteer for being tested, maybe to be paid? I know it's strange question, but it will be strange if it's wrong to test on the human, while it's ok for animals to be test, you know what I mean..

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