Should animal testing be banned? - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Should all animal testing be banned?
I accept that animal testing should be banned. 1 100.00%
I don’t accept that animal testing should be banned. 0 0%
I don’t know that animal testing should be banned. 0 0%
Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 04-05-2007, 04:29 PM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

True, but at least they are educated, and if they can show results, then their argument is more substantiated than the vast majority of the ones that come from the anti-testers.

There are legitimate scientists who question the efficacy of animal testing, particularly if you're talking about non-primates. The media had a heyday with this story after the recent Vioxx scandal. "How did this happen? We tested on animals!" yada yada

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 04-05-2007, 08:31 PM
Beginner
 
Kidneylust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 177
I dunno my thoughts on this really, some things are dumb like testing make-up or lipstick on animals and junk like that, but using an animal to try and find a cure for cancer I could understand, but I've read things about how they put mice in ovens and junk to test burn creams and well thats just wrong, like handcuffedangel said use humans, take the bums and give em money to be tested on, theyll do it.
Kidneylust is offline  
#33 Old 04-05-2007, 08:44 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Damn my incompetence for forgetting the * as I meant to write veg*an. The statement still holds though and thankyou for your helpful hint.



The statement is incorrect, as people go vegetarian for a variety of reasons, many having nothing to with animal rights.





Quote:

I hang my head in embarrassment as I have found my quote and I was wrong on a number of points, actually I was completely wrong and my memory failed me big time.



As I suspected. At least you admit to your mistakes.





Quote:
Again sorry for my misquote but as you can see from the three quotes above that my misquote would have been the better quote from the point of view of a pro-animal tester.



Not really, as 3 random quotes out of context mean nothing. For example, rats are not the only test subjects used for cancer, so the first quote really means very little.



Quote:

And Tame, your sarcastic comment aside, if you had any desire to change your opinion then maybe you should read some pro and anti vivesection books and give us some pearls of wisdom.



I have read both sides,a nd have debated this in detail many, many times.



Quote:
Even I as an educated person that has read more books on both sides than I care to think about has yet to read a convincing scientific argument FOR animal testing.



Well, I have. Where does that lead us?



Quote:
If you want to see result that animal testing is dubious at best then give your dog some chocolate as if it is safe for humans to eat it must be for dogs (it can kill dogs so please don't).



Wow. That is, like, maybe the worst argument ever made in an animal testing thread. And I have seen some terrible ones. Would you like a re-do before I rp it?



Quote:
Or maybe we should ignore the following drugs that almost never reached human use because they can kill non-human animals:



* Corticosteroids: These have been shown to cause cancer in some rodents, despite their being used safely by humans for years.

* Depo-Provera: This contraceptive was barred from release in the US in 1973 because it caused cancer in dogs and baboons.

* FK506: This anti-rejection drug was almost shelved before it proceeded to clinical trials. After experimenting on dogs, researchers said animal toxicity was too severe to proceed to the clinical trial stage.

* Furosemide: Mice, rats and hamsters suffer liver damage from this diuretic, but humans do not. It is widely prescribed for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart disease.

* Isoniazid: This medication, commonly used for treating tuberculosis, caused cancer in animals.

* Penicillin: The release of penicillin was delayed when its discoverer, Alexander Fleming, put it to one side because it did not work in rabbits. This is because rabbits excrete penicillin in their urine. Only when Fleming had a sick human patient and nothing else to try, did he administer penicillin -- with excellent results.

* Prilosec: The release of this gastrointestinal medication was delayed for 12 years because of an effect in animals which did not occur in humans.

* Streptomycin: This popular antibiotic caused birth defects such as limb malformations in the offspring of rats.



Also blood transfusion was delayed by decades because it failed on the dogs that they tested it on. This is merely scratching the surface but as I do not want to go into vast detail I cannot give a "more substantiated" argument. Meanwhile lets ignore the countless horrendous errors such as Thalidamide.



I would ask you for a source, but I don't expect a legitimate one. BTW, read up on Thalidomide. It did cause birth defects in testing in animals, when it was tested on pregnant animals that is. Prior to the release, it had only been tested on critters that were not preggers. If you do a search on VB, you can see where I provided documentation for this a variety of times.



A general link on birth defects, related to animal research and Thalidomide:

http://www.birthdefects.org/Research/bendectin2.htm



Quote:

A good, educated and well constructed discussion on animal testing:-

http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/

http://www.iaapea.com/fatalmistakes.php



Yet medical science has advanced so far, and all by using faulty testing! Well, to be honest, when your first link has the word "absurd" in it, it isn't worth my time as it will hardly be unbiased.
Tame is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 04-05-2007, 08:46 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

There are legitimate scientists who question the efficacy of animal testing, particularly if you're talking about non-primates. The media had a heyday with this story after the recent Vioxx scandal. "How did this happen? We tested on animals!" yada yada



Hhhmmm...yet Vioxx passed human clinical trials as well. Animal testing is a tool, and not the be-all, end-all. Also, it is not random, and the procedures and animals chosen are based on past research and the knowledge of how certain species compare to ours, unlike the PETA/ALF/ARA-asshat view which thinks you randomly shove pills down the throat of rats and wait to see what happens.
Tame is offline  
#35 Old 04-05-2007, 09:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
sybaritik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidneylust View Post

use humans, take the bums and give em money to be tested on, theyll do it.



I don't think taking advantage of the homeless and destitute is the way to go about it either. It would be much more ethical if we used volunteers who are not compromised in any way.
sybaritik is offline  
#36 Old 04-06-2007, 01:59 AM
Beginner
 
thehappyhippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

The statement is incorrect, as people go vegetarian for a variety of reasons, many having nothing to with animal rights.

""as people go veg*an for a variety of reasons" uhm that was kind of my statement so not sure what you are meaning here. Unless we are both wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Not really, as 3 random quotes out of context mean nothing. For example, rats are not the only test subjects used for cancer, so the first quote really means very little.

"Taken out of context" - not really as the quotes mean something even if they stand on their own. Numerous report have been published on the uselessness of using rats in cancer experiments yet they are still used. Why????



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Well, I have. Where does that lead us?

If you have read both side then how about giving some more nuggets of your wisdom. I find debating with someone whos only response is to find tiny holes in the other persons argument and not putting any real argument forward to support their point of view to be of limited use. Also it is a sure sign of the other person not having an adequate argument. Please give us some fact to support your pro-testing argument as that would make this debate really interesting and not just meaningless nitpicking.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Wow. That is, like, maybe the worst argument ever made in an animal testing thread. And I have seen some terrible ones. Would you like a re-do before I rp it?

My point was that different species have different reactions. If something as benign as chocolate can kill a dog then how can we trust any thing tested on another non-human animal. Chocolate is one of many food products that are fine for humans but deadly to other species.

Different species = different reactions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

I would ask you for a source, but I don't expect a legitimate one.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/article...altesting.html



But if you really wanted to get more complete information then google each drug and read about it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Yet medical science has advanced so far, and all by using faulty testing! Well, to be honest, when your first link has the word "absurd" in it, it isn't worth my time as it will hardly be unbiased.



Firstly to dismiss something because it has the word "absurd" in the title just shows how narrow minded and pompous you are. The word "absurd" means "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) which is exactly what the article talks about.



Secondly why if medical science has advanced so far because of animal testing do we still need to test on humans before the drug is released to the general public. Could it be because they can not trust the results from the animal experiments??



Third and finally medical science has advanced so far not because of medical experimentation being correct but because it is used as a crutch to get things past the lawyers (at least in modern times). Like all proper sciences old theorems and techniques are replaced by newer, better, more reliable theorems and techniques. You see this at work in maths, computers, socioliogy, astrology, medicine etc. So why when you have computers and physical models that can accurately model the human body are we still using animals. Granted to my knowledge there is no model for every human part. Surely investing and developing this industry is far better than relying on an archaic form of "science" that has proven ineffective and misleading in countless millions of cases.



Hopefully "Tame" if you do reply your insightful comments will have pro-arguments not just nitpicking points. Remember no argument is perfect and ALL arguments have flaws.
thehappyhippo is offline  
#37 Old 04-06-2007, 04:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
meatless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post


Hopefully "Tame" if you do reply your insightful comments will have pro-arguments not just nitpicking points.



That won't happen. It's generally best just to ignore Tame.
meatless is offline  
#38 Old 04-06-2007, 05:40 AM
Beginner
 
thehappyhippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatless View Post

That won't happen. It's generally best just to ignore Tame.



Is he known to be a wind up merchant then?
thehappyhippo is offline  
#39 Old 04-06-2007, 05:54 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

""as people go veg*an for a variety of reasons" uhm that was kind of my statement so not sure what you are meaning here. Unless we are both wrong.



Your statement was shock and dismay that not all veg*ns were anti-testing, which is pretty silly to be shocked about if you know not all veg*ns are in favor of animal rights.



Quote:

"Taken out of context" - not really as the quotes mean something even if they stand on their own. Numerous report have been published on the uselessness of using rats in cancer experiments yet they are still used. Why????



Well, as I don't know what reports you are refrring to, my guess would be that rats serve a purpose in testing certain cancer treatments, but probably not all.

And if you don't understand how not knowing the context of quotes matter, well, then we raelly can't go forward.



Quote:

If you have read both side then how about giving some more nuggets of your wisdom. I find debating with someone whos only response is to find tiny holes in the other persons argument and not putting any real argument forward to support their point of view to be of limited use. Also it is a sure sign of the other person not having an adequate argument. Please give us some fact to support your pro-testing argument as that would make this debate really interesting and not just meaningless nitpicking.



*sigh* Will you actually listen if I do? I have linked many, many articles on VB to show why animal testing is still a useful tool, and but I find they are wasted on ARAs with the intelligence of cupie dolls.

If you want, I will gladly pull up my links, but my core argument will be that researchers who achieve results credit the use of animal testing in their success. For me, that will be good enough.





Quote:

My point was, my obtuse friend, was one that different species have different reactions. If something as benign as chocolate can kill a dog then how can we trust any thing tested on another non-human animal. Chocolate is one of many food products that are fine for humans but deadly to other species.

Different species = different reactions.



Which is why different animals are used for different research.

I don't understand why anti-testers have a hard time getting that concept.



Quote:
But if you really wanted to get more complete information then google each drug and read about it.



I will get back to you on this one.





Quote:

Firstly to dismiss something because it has the word "absurd" in the title just shows how narrow minded and pompous you are. The word "absurd" means "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) which is exactly what the article talks about.



When a website calls something absurd in the actual site name, then only a fool would believe what they are reading lacks an agenda.

Quote:

Secondly why if medical science has advanced so far because of animal testing do we still need to test on humans before the drug is released to the general public. Could it be because they can not trust the results from the animal experiments??



No, it is because animal testing is a tool, and one step in the process. Keep in mind that all drugs, even thoselater recalled, undergo human clinical trials as well. Would you like to argue that human testing is worthless as well?



Quote:

Third and finally medical science has advanced so far not because of medical experimentation being correct but because it is used as a crutch to get things past the lawyers (at least in modern times). Like all proper sciences old theorems and techniques are replaced by newer, better, more reliable theorems and techniques. You see this at work in maths, computers, socioliogy, astrology, medicine etc. So why when you have computers and physical models that can accurately model the human body are we still using animals.



Because nothing has been developed, yet, that can account for the complexity of a living organism, human or animal.

Your first sentence in this paragraph isn't even worth addressing.



Quote:
Granted to my knowledge there is no model for every human part.



I think that answers your own question.



Quote:
Surely investing and developing this industry is far better than relying on an archaic form of "science" that has proven ineffective and misleading in countless millions of cases.



Let's see cancer survival rates are up, treatments are available for numerous diseases and conditions that were not even just a couple of decades back, new surgical techniques have been developed...yeah, animal testing has proven ineffective.



Quote:

Hopefully "Tame" if you do reply your insightful comments will have pro-arguments not just nitpicking points. Remember no argument is perfect and ALL arguments have flaws.



I will address an argument in whatever manner I choose. I am glad you admit all arguments have flaws. Acceptance is the first step in the true path to recovery.
Tame is offline  
#40 Old 04-06-2007, 05:57 AM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Hhhmmm...yet Vioxx passed human clinical trials as well. Animal testing is a tool, and not the be-all, end-all. Also, it is not random, and the procedures and animals chosen are based on past research and the knowledge of how certain species compare to ours, unlike the PETA/ALF/ARA-asshat view which thinks you randomly shove pills down the throat of rats and wait to see what happens.

To clarify, I wasn't necessarily passing judgement on the Vioxx case itself, as I'm not informed enough to do so. I was just saying that because of the Vioxx incident, the media's been able to offer opinions of physicians who don't believe testing is the best method for curing disease.a



I know you tend to dismiss PCRM as nutcases, but for many of the associated physicians, that's simply an unfair and inaccurate statement. They provide scientific, peer-reviewed studies that meet the generally accepted criteria of good science. We just watched a movie containing interviews with physicians from places like UCLA medical center, who believed testing to be ineffective. Dr. Feinberg, the director of the AIDS research center at Emory has spoken out against testing. There's a large group in Germany (Doctors Against Animal Experiments, or something like that) of qualified physicians who believe testing is not the best method. Similar groups exist here in Britain, and other countries as well.



You can dismiss them as usual, but it's a false statement to insinuate that the "vast majority" of anti-test scientists are not educated.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#41 Old 04-06-2007, 06:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Elena99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Is he known to be a wind up merchant then?



More like he's the Energizer Bunny.
Elena99 is offline  
#42 Old 04-06-2007, 07:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
evan_fabiani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 590
im really surprised the amount of people agreeing with animal testing, especially on a board like this. It's very dissapointing.
evan_fabiani is offline  
#43 Old 04-06-2007, 07:26 AM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
Evan_fabiani, I think many people have the idea that animal testing accomplishes a lot, when in reality, it doesn't. If so many companies can sell products that aren't testing on animals (the best products actually), then why do other companies have to test? For example... Victoria's Secret doesn't test their beauty products on animals and companies like Maybelinne do. I honestly think the VS products are 10 times better. When it comes to medical research, studies have shown that animals aren't close enough to humans to really help with studies. I think we should be tests on orphan children (okay, not really, but I'd like to see the reaction of a company if I suggested it).
danakscully64 is offline  
#44 Old 04-06-2007, 08:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
I remember years ago reading an article by a cancer researcher. He mentioned how mice could handle a dose of a certain chemotherapy drug that was several times the dose that would kill a human. So he tested new drugs on himself first, rather than subject patients to harm. Talk about dedication. Anyway, this guy was not an AR activist or against animal testing for ethical reasons. He was concerned about the accuracy. I wish I would've saved the article.
Wolfie is offline  
#45 Old 04-06-2007, 08:19 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan_fabiani View Post

im really surprised the amount of people agreeing with animal testing, especially on a board like this. It's very dissapointing.



What is even more disappointing is the number of people who say they are against animal testing yet continue to buy products that are tested on animals.
GhostUser is offline  
#46 Old 04-06-2007, 08:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

Evan_fabiani, I think many people have the idea that animal testing accomplishes a lot, when in reality, it doesn't.

Even if so, I think it's still disturbing because the acceptability of vivisection shouldn't depend on whether it works or not.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#47 Old 04-06-2007, 08:25 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
For the record, I also am somewhat skeptical about those who say they are against it, because their view may be based exactly on the idea that vivisection doesn't work, and so if someone were to convince them that it does work, the results of this poll would be different. So it is important to discuss the ethical aspects of it seriously: is there any sensible justification for using animals as property?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#48 Old 04-06-2007, 08:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Treehugger267's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

For the record, I also am somewhat skeptical about those who say they are against it, because their view may be based exactly on the idea that vivisection doesn't work, and so if someone were to convince them that it does work, the results of this poll would be different. So it is important to discuss the ethical aspects of it seriously: is there any sensible justification for using animals as property?



These are more my thoughts too. What right do we have to inflict torture on another living thing.
Treehugger267 is offline  
#49 Old 04-06-2007, 09:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
That Alpaca Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

I love how many companies think that just because the animal is small (rat, mouse, rabbit), it's okay to test on them.



It's because Rats, Mice, Guinea pigs and Rabbits are cheap (relatively) to house and feed, actually.



Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

If so many companies can sell products that aren't testing on animals . . . then why do other companies have to test?



I'd be willing to bet that most products that use 'not tested on animals' (especially those with a high chemical content) as a selling point really mean 'this product as a whole was not tested on animals' saying nothing of the components, most of which have already been tested on animals for lethal dose rates years ago.



Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post


studies have shown that animals aren't close enough to humans to really help with studies. I think we should be tests on orphan children (okay, not really, but I'd like to see the reaction of a company if I suggested it).



And yet, despite the high cost of animal testing facilities, it is still a a widely used model.



Quote:
Originally Posted by evan_fabiani View Post

im really surprised the amount of people agreeing with animal testing, especially on a board like this. It's very dissapointing.



It's a controversial issue. Your kinda setting yourself up for a fall if your disappointed when people disagree with you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Chocolate is one of many food products that are fine for humans but deadly to other species.



How would you come to this conclusion without an animal model?



Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post


Like all proper sciences old theorems and techniques are replaced by newer, better, more reliable theorems and techniques.



What makes you think this does not occur in animal testing models? (which, BTW, is not a 'science' so I don't really see your point) With the advent of genetic manipulation of mice (and other animals) it is increasingly possible to tailor animals to specific testing needs.
That Alpaca Guy is offline  
#50 Old 04-06-2007, 09:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

So it is important to discuss the ethical aspects of it seriously: is there any sensible justification for using animals as property?



No.
Wolfie is offline  
#51 Old 04-06-2007, 10:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
joyinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 278
i voted that it should be banned. there are too many better alternatives out there right now, that there is no way companies can say it's necessary anymore.



i also wouldnt trust a drug that was only tested out on monkeys to be safe for humans. we just arent the same animal
joyinc is offline  
#52 Old 04-06-2007, 10:52 AM
Beginner
 
thehappyhippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Alpaca Guy View Post


How would you come to this conclusion without an animal model?

you don't need to model it. The fact that some breeds of dogs die if you give them chocolate is a pretty damning conclusion.





Quote:
Originally Posted by That Alpaca Guy View Post

What makes you think this does not occur in animal testing models? (which, BTW, is not a 'science' so I don't really see your point) With the advent of genetic manipulation of mice (and other animals) it is increasingly possible to tailor animals to specific testing needs.



Sadly I would assume you know little about genetic manipulation to come up with this statement. Just because you manipulate one set of genes doesn't make the entire animals system more compatible, in fact it could as a whole be more incompatible due to the repercussion of these "tiny" modification. I do agree with you that animal testing is not a science as it is more akin to prodding sticks in the dark.



Tame I'm not going to bother replying to your last post as it is just nitpicking and in many places rather childish (my partner suggested you were a 12 year old giggling in front of his computer - his opinion, not necessarily mine). Until you can give evidence to your case then I will assume you have nothing constructive to add. I also find it entertaining that you whinge that people will not read your links when you so casually ignore a link because it contains a word you find to be uncomfortable. "Absurd" is just a word not an emotionally driven biased statement.
thehappyhippo is offline  
#53 Old 04-06-2007, 11:30 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by veggiejanie View Post

What is even more disappointing is the number of people who say they are against animal testing yet continue to buy products that are tested on animals.



good point , veggiej
bluegold is offline  
#54 Old 04-06-2007, 01:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Snow White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post


Sadly I would assume you know little about genetic manipulation to come up with this statement. Just because you manipulate one set of genes doesn't make the entire animals system more compatible, in fact it could as a whole be more incompatible due to the repercussion of these "tiny" modification. I do agree with you that animal testing is not a science as it is more akin to prodding sticks in the dark.



Example? I would assume he was referring to disease models...
Snow White is offline  
#55 Old 04-06-2007, 02:00 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
This is related and may be of interest to everyone:

https://www.veggieboards.com/boards/s...ad.php?t=70121
GhostUser is offline  
#56 Old 04-06-2007, 02:47 PM
Tom
Veggie Regular
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post


If you want to see result that animal testing is dubious at best then give your dog some chocolate as if it is safe for humans to eat it must be for dogs (it can kill dogs so please don't).



Wow. That is, like, maybe the worst argument ever made in an animal testing thread. And I have seen some terrible ones. Would you like a re-do before I rp it?



Actually, that came to my mind as well before happyhippo posted it. I also thought of onion and aspirin for cats. More than a very small amount of onion can start degrading a cat's red blood cells and eventually cause anemia, although I don't know how likely a cat is to eat it, except possibly in something else like meat loaf. Nobody take this as gospel because I'm doing this from memory: I think aspirin can be used for cats, but must be monitored VERY carefully to avoid an overdose. And tylenol is flat-out lethal for cats.



I can see how these might be exceptional cases, and how testing one chemical or procedure on a range of animal species might be a good indication of how a human will respond.



Ray Greek is a physician and his wife Jean S. Greek is a veterinarian. I read their first book (criticising vivisection and describing how illnesses and treatments differ for humans and different animals) when it came out. They are not researchers, but they argue that between them, they have a unique understanding of how one species is unlikely to be a good model for a different species- whether it's two different animals or an animal and a human.



The book has a long reference section. I photocopied it and am reading each reference for myself if I can find it in the local public or university libraries. I want to believe the Greeks, but emotions can cloud someone's judgement, and I found the tone of the book strident in passages. (For the record, I attanded an anti-vivisection presentation once, and several pro-vivisection researchers were also there. This was fine... but I was surprised to see several of the pro-vivisectionists speak as hyperemotionally and abrasively as animal advocates are often assumed to be.)

Peasant (1963-1972) and Fluffy (1970s?-1982- I think of you as 'Ambrose' now)- Your spirits outshone some humans I have known. Be happy forever.
Tom is offline  
#57 Old 04-07-2007, 12:19 AM
Newbie
 
HotShot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 63
Tame ,Tame ,Tame ..... there are models to use for virtually everything in medical science. As one instance you would find that in certain nursing programs they disect and intubate cats. While there is actually no reason that disection of one would teach you anything about human anatomy that you couldnt learn from watching an autopsy at your local morgue ,infact it would teach you much less, the argument has been made that a cats glottic opening (thats vocal cords) closely resemble an infants. Bollocks!! Intubating a cat teaches you exactly how to intubate a CAT!. Manequins are much more acurate for intubation in that they exactly replicate the human anatomy and cadavers even more so.



In certain paramedic programs ,where there are a shortage of cadavers, pigs necks are used to teach crico-thyroidotomies, (thats a surgical airway) and once again manequins are readily available ,and practicing on a pig teaches you exactly how to do it to a pig.



With regards to drug testing your blind right winged opposition refuses to allow you to accept the fact that testing on an animal shows you only how that animal will react. Not a human. Much more how a cruelly unhappy enslaved and jailed (and frequently abused) animal reacts versus how a free and questionably happy human would react. Questionable because he/she is in need of drug therapy in the first place.



How many drugs do you see ,that only too recently were passed by the FDA based on succesful animal tests, that are now involved in lawsuits for being harmful to humans Tame??



No ... animal testing remains ,as it ever has been, closely related to the type of macabre science the Nazi party did. With no actual human benefit.



*edited to remove personal attacks*
HotShot is offline  
#58 Old 04-07-2007, 02:21 AM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotShot View Post

Ahh Tame I see you are still here trolling about in virtual space ever pretending to be an expert on things you know absolutely nothing about! How sad and unfulfilling your life must be to be wasting it away here in cyberspace touting your right winged yet still vegan blowhardiness. :

Way to re-enter the VB community.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#59 Old 04-07-2007, 08:28 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotShot View Post




Tame ,Tame ,Tame ..... there are models to use for virtually everything in medical science. As one instance you would find that in certain nursing programs they disect and intubate cats. While there is actually no reason that disection of one would teach you anything about human anatomy that you couldnt learn from watching an autopsy at your local morgue ,infact it would teach you much less, the argument has been made that a cats glottic opening (thats vocal cords slappy) closely resemble an infants. Bollocks!! Intubating a cat teaches you exactly how to intubate a CAT!. Manequins are much more acurate for intubation in that they exactly replicate the human anatomy and cadavers even more so.



But mannequins and cadavers don't move, and getting used to working on a living creature matters as well.

Are you certain the vocal cords do not resemble those of an infant?



Quote:

In certain paramedic programs ,where there are a shortage of cadavers, pigs necks are used to teach crico-thyroidotomies, (thats a surgical airway fizzlenuts), and once again manequins are readily available ,and practicing on a pig teaches you exactly how to do it to a pig.



And they do this why? oh, because like you said, there is a shortage of cadavers.



Quote:

How many drugs do you see ,that only too recently were passed by the FDA based on succesful animal tests, that are now involved in lawsuits for being harmful to humans Tame??



Yet all of those had to go through human trials as well. Hhhhmmmm....
Tame is offline  
#60 Old 04-07-2007, 08:46 AM
Tom
Veggie Regular
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by sybaritik View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Kidneylust View Post


use humans, take the bums and give em money to be tested on, theyll do it.



I don't think taking advantage of the homeless and destitute is the way to go about it either. It would be much more ethical if we used volunteers who are not compromised in any way.



WHOA. How did I miss Kidneylust's way-way-WAY-the-hell-beyond-merely-crude post??!! Street people can be annoying sometimes, but even if Kidneylust's comment is meant to be a joke... let's just say I didn't even crack a smile reading it.



About human trials... that book by Ray and Jean Greek I referred to above mentioned how, after a new medicine passes initial human trials, its record with patients is monitored for some time. I think they recommended that this period be extended for longer than it is now, to improve the odds that rarer adverse effects could be picked up sooner.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

For the record, I also am somewhat skeptical about those who say they are against it, because their view may be based exactly on the idea that vivisection doesn't work, and so if someone were to convince them that it does work, the results of this poll would be different. So it is important to discuss the ethical aspects of it seriously: is there any sensible justification for using animals as property?

I've been thinking a lot about your take on this (not that it's exclusively yours- others agree with you). You have argued that it's not necessarily about whether humans are "more important" or "worth more than animals"- it's about whether animals have rights which cannot be violated, and since humans are (usually) moral agents, they have an obligation to respect this. I can accept that an animal cannot be used if that use would harm the animal more than it would help the human, but I still melt down when I consider adopting the pure animal-rights take on this issue.

Peasant (1963-1972) and Fluffy (1970s?-1982- I think of you as 'Ambrose' now)- Your spirits outshone some humans I have known. Be happy forever.
Tom is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off