VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Should animal testing be banned? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-24-2007 01:15 PM
danakscully64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

That is a ridiculous standard.



I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I wouldn't subject any living creatures to something I wouldn't put my own child through.
04-21-2007 08:48 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post


Earlier in this thread I was going to argue that even if I don't consider animals to be property, the necessity of curing disease might justify vivisection- assuming vivisection can produce worthwhile medical information.

Can those two beliefs -- animals not being property, and valuable information justifying vivisection -- ever be compatible, though? I would argue that vivisection inherently means that animals are property,

a) in a more abstract sense of property: the vivisectors hold the animals captive, and the animals' crucial interests in life, liberty, social interaction and freedom from suffering are in the vivisectors' hands. They have absolute authority over the animals. The authority is absolute despite some welfare laws regulating the animal exploitation because that authority concerns such crucial interests. If I had kids locked up in a cellar and did experiments on them and had control over their lives, could anyone say that my relation to them shouldn't essentially be characterized as ownership?

b) in a more practical (legal) sense, if you have vivisection without animals as legal property, AR activists can legally rescue them from the vivisectors' hands. That is incompatible with the safe continuing practice of vivisection.



Quote:
If enough people decided vivisection should be banned, that ban would have to be legally enforced upon researchers who still want to perform such experiments. And they probably would ask why humans do not have a right to kill in order to preserve their lives when animal predators do that all the time.

I would tell them that if they want to model their ethics on wolves and hyenas, they should not do that in a human society
04-20-2007 01:45 PM
bluegold http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00038.htm



It seems the the herd of pigs been used , have been on some island since 1854 So they have not been exposed to modern virus . A guy doing the research said it more than you can say about humans (referring to the viral status )



We have the big picture stuff here , the researches seem very confident in the direction they are going



So if we apply sevenseas rational here , we come back to the moral status of the pigs themselves



There have been human trails
04-20-2007 09:15 AM
Tame
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post

This is how I know... would the scientists do these experiments on their own kids? If the answer is no, animal testing should be banned.



That is a ridiculous standard.
04-20-2007 05:28 AM
kpickell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The problem with claiming that only vivisection advocates care about the "big picture" is that both pro- and anti-AR people can hold the belief that advancing medicine is extremely important but inherently valuable beings cannot be sacrificed for that goal. Where they disagree is in what beings they consider inherently valuable. So, the difference between the views is in the moral status of animals, not in how important the "big picture" is (whatever that means exactly).

I think that's true.
04-19-2007 10:21 PM
danakscully64 I think what bothers me the most is the fact that companies say what they're doing is "humane" when in reality, it's sick and cruel torture. This is how I know... would the scientists do these experiments on their own kids? If the answer is no, animal testing should be banned.
04-18-2007 03:16 PM
bluegold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain



its a good point red , where the great majority are actually put of by the slaughter of animals ....and then go and have a good old meat up afterwords
04-18-2007 09:26 AM
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

The problem with claiming that only vivisection advocates care about the "big picture" is that both pro- and anti-AR people can hold the belief that advancing medicine is extremely important but inherently valuable beings cannot be sacrificed for that goal. Where they disagree is in what beings they consider inherently valuable. So, the difference between the views is in the moral status of animals, not in how important the "big picture" is (whatever that means exactly).



Good point.



About omnis who oppose vivisection... I've never understood this. Even if you grew up thinking charred animal flesh tastes good (like I did), it's not a necessity for health (for at least most of us).



Earlier in this thread I was going to argue that even if I don't consider animals to be property, the necessity of curing disease might justify vivisection- assuming vivisection can produce worthwhile medical information. The issue of whether or not it works is still important, even though it is also important to consider whether or not we have a right to subject an animal to experiments regardless of whether or not it could save human lives. If enough people decided vivisection should be banned, that ban would have to be legally enforced upon researchers who still want to perform such experiments. And they probably would ask why humans do not have a right to kill in order to preserve their lives when animal predators do that all the time.



Considering that someone may not be motivated enough to refrain from having animals killed merely because animal flesh tastes good to them, I always find it hard to believe such a person would oppose vivisection if they thought it would save lives. Maybe it's because the desire for a steak dinner is immediate, but the threat of serious illness is only a far-off possibility they don't bother confronting until they have to.
04-17-2007 01:00 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain

Good of you to point that out: even some meat-eaters realize the immorality of vivisection. That's certainly something worth thinking about.
04-17-2007 12:50 AM
Red
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post


Some more quotes:

I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't.... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. ~Mark Twain



It didn't seem to bother his appetite much.



"Nothing helps scenery like ham and eggs. Ham and eggs, and after these a pipean old, rank, delicious pipeham and eggs and scenery, a down-grade, a flying coach, a fragrant pipe, and a contented heartthese make happiness. It is what all the ages have struggled for." ~Mark Twain
04-16-2007 02:58 PM
kpickell True dat.
04-16-2007 02:52 PM
Irizary
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

I meant that was a first for me, in terms of hearing that supporting animal testing was caring about the "bigger picture."



I guess what is meant by "bigger picture" is relative. Since I'd include rights in with any "bigger picture." The same 'benefits outweighs the costs' could be used for the same justification on humans.



Potentially saving anything is hypothetical. Killing something now is not hypothetical, it's very real. I would find those two to be difficult to balance in any benefit vs cost analysis.



Exactly. "Bigger picture" for me might include humans *finally* developing an ethics in which might doesn't make right, such that you can enslave and create a holocaust for sentient beings you deem less worthy than yourself (whether they're a different color, ethnicity, or species). I think that advancement in human ethics would be far more valuable - and save more lives - than the possibility of some hypothecial future cure. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character."



Some more quotes:

I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't.... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. ~Mark Twain



I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence. ~Mahatma Gandhi
04-16-2007 02:44 PM
Sevenseas The problem with claiming that only vivisection advocates care about the "big picture" is that both pro- and anti-AR people can hold the belief that advancing medicine is extremely important but inherently valuable beings cannot be sacrificed for that goal. Where they disagree is in what beings they consider inherently valuable. So, the difference between the views is in the moral status of animals, not in how important the "big picture" is (whatever that means exactly).
04-16-2007 02:20 PM
nogardsram
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

I disagree with the argument, but it's really not that far out there. If a small number of animals are sacrificed in animal experiments, vivisection, etc. to make way for advancements, cures, vaccines, et. al. that would save many animals, then some might say that the benefits outweigh the costs.



I meant that was a first for me, in terms of hearing that supporting animal testing was caring about the "bigger picture."



I guess what is meant by "bigger picture" is relative. Since I'd include rights in with any "bigger picture." The same 'benefits outweighs the costs' could be used for the same justification on humans.



Potentially saving anything is hypothetical. Killing something now is not hypothetical, it's very real. I would find those two to be difficult to balance in any benefit vs cost analysis.
04-16-2007 01:57 PM
IamJen
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

"Bigger picture"? How is allowing animal testing considered caring "about the bigger picture"?



That's a first...



I disagree with the argument, but it's really not that far out there. If a small number of animals are sacrificed in animal experiments, vivisection, etc. to make way for advancements, cures, vaccines, et. al. that would save many animals, then some might say that the benefits outweigh the costs.
04-16-2007 01:52 PM
Becks06 A few pages back someone, sorry I forget who, said they wouldn't use drugs that were only tested on monkeys cos humans and monkeys are different. Basically all drugs are tested on humans, through phase 2 and phase 3 trials. To the best of my recollection phase 2 involves healthy adult males, where as phase 3 is a large scale test across many areas involving people with the disease the drug is meant to treat, testing against the current 'gold standard' drug. Phase 1 is where animals are used, in drug studies anyways. Everything to try and bring a drug to the market can take 20 or so years.

All the many points posted above are good, but the fact is, while a drug may be found to be safe by phase 3 trials, long term use is not something that can be known until the drug has been on the market for and used for a long time. Take tamoxifen for example, only over the last few years has it become apparent that long term use can lead to uterine cancer. And tamoxifen has been on the market for a long time as the gold standard for breast cancer treatment!

Another 5 cents of my views, hehe.
04-16-2007 01:07 PM
GhostUser
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandcuffedAngel View Post

I think it should be banned. I think it's a bit cruel and inhumane to force an animal to be a testing subject against its will.



If you want something to be tested so bad, there are clinical trials where people can be tested on. You want a cure for cancer? Volunteer for testing different methods of treatment that are undergoing research and study.



Want to know if the lipstick really stays on for 8 hours? Volunteer to test it yourself.



It doesn't make any sense that we test our things that we are going to use on animals that will never have any use for these things. On top of that, we do it against their will. At least people can consent to the testing.

What she said! What she said.
04-16-2007 12:45 PM
gaya Good point and idea, seven.
04-16-2007 12:41 PM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post


Eh, i've said all this before. The angle that "it doesn't work" won't cut it. We need to show that these animals are precious and don't deserve to be used for our benefit. how to get people in general to have a heart? who knows.

Some people argue that since vivisection takes such a small percentage of exploited animals overall, AR activists shouldn't even focus on vivisection but exclusively on animal agriculture. While I disagree with that idea, I think that it may be easier to make people question vivisection when you first get them to stop being dependent on animal products in their diet, clothing etc. (Because many anti-AR views may be rationalizations, i.e. they are made up in order to justify the use of animal products.) After that, they would be more open to questioning other forms of exploitation too. In short, if you have a significantly greater amount of vegans, you're going to have a significant reduction in vivisection.



Or maybe not, this is just a thought.
04-16-2007 12:03 PM
gaya And while i realize that cutting and pasting is sometimes necessary, pasting two pages of stuff that you probably don't understand is just annoying. pick one or two things, research it outside of your biased source, try to get the actual gist of it and then engage in discussion. Pasting two pages of "factoids" doesn't help the conversation imo and only rings of quackery.
04-16-2007 10:56 AM
gaya I think animal testing should be banned. With that said, i also think most of you are wrong about the usefulness of animal testing but it's probably due to the fact that you aren't up to speed on animal testing in general. It's vast and horrific. I imagine the stats you find will be based on "types" of testing which really doesn't touch the surface of animal testing as a whole....kind of like birds fly and so do bats, therefor bats are birds type of thing.



I recently attended a thesis defense for a friend of mine (fortunately he spoke of the sadness of animal testing in his work due to my attendance) that investigated nanoemulsions for therapuetic delivery; topically and intravenous. It works in mice. There's little reason (with this type of investigation) to think it won't work in humans. He wasn't looking at a new drug but a delivery method. We already know how the drugs used work in both animals and humans so there's no reason to suspect differing reactions outside a more efficient method of delivery. This work could likely revolutionize cancer treatment.



Also, every test you get at your md's office is based on animal testing and more cost efficient and specific assays are being developed every day. Every time you have blood work done (lipid panel, glucose test etc) or have a urine sample processed, it's based on animal testing. I was just reading about a new assay for lyme disease that significantly increases specificity based on research with chimeras. It's not all about scientists researching new drugs. That's just a drop in the ocean.



Eh, i've said all this before. The angle that "it doesn't work" won't cut it. We need to show that these animals are precious and don't deserve to be used for our benefit. how to get people in general to have a heart? who knows.
04-16-2007 10:29 AM
GhostUser I don't think all testing should be banned. I wouldn't buy dog food that wasn't tested to see if dogs liked the taste, or doggie shampoo that didn't clean a dog.
04-16-2007 09:07 AM
nogardsram
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

My ears were ringing.



Yes, go figure, veg*ns who actually care about the bigger picture.



"Bigger picture"? How is allowing animal testing considered caring "about the bigger picture"?



That's a first...
04-16-2007 02:45 AM
Sevenseas
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post


Yes, go figure, veg*ns who actually care about the bigger picture.

Trying to frame this issue as between "caring about the bigger picture" and "not caring about the bigger picture" is disingenious. AR advocates care about the bigger picture just as much as those human rights advocates who think experimentation on unconsenting humans is wrong, no matter the benefits.
04-16-2007 01:41 AM
thehappyhippo
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_vegan View Post

92% of drugs made and then tested on animals and decieded safe for humans, FAIL in clinical trials, some with devistating effects .

For example - TGN1412 monoclonal antibody trial disaster , and reports show that the animals, including monkeys and rabbits, were given doses up to 500times stronger than that given to the humans with no ill-effects shown in the animals.



45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.



These two points are incredible thankyou for such a detailed post. The 20 minute video is extremely convincing and raises a lot of points that some of the people here have been arguing against.
04-16-2007 01:22 AM
go_vegan 25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.



26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.



27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen. Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.



28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species'.



29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.



30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.



31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.



33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.



34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.



35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.



36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently



37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.



38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.



39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.



40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.



41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.



42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier.



43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals. Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful. In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.



44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood. However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.



45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.



46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats.



47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result.



48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.



49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.



50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans.



for more about the vivisection industry see:



http://www.uncaged.co.uk/

http://www.buav.org/

http://www.bava.org.uk/

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMP...riments/ALL///
04-16-2007 01:19 AM
go_vegan http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/CAMP...g//4//?be_id=8



the above is a video, please watch it, about half way through aswell it tells you about some of the reasons the gov will never bann animal experiments, unless people get out to the streets and educate the public into why , for humans sake aswell as animals, we should bann vivsection.









Let me tell you all some FACTS about animal experiments:



92% of drugs made and then tested on animals and decieded safe for humans, FAIL in clinical trials, some with devistating effects .

For example - TGN1412 monoclonal antibody trial disaster , and reports show that the animals, including monkeys and rabbbits, were given doses up to 500times stronger than that given to the humans with no ill-effects shown in the animals.



The NHS have to spend over £500million annually treating the 250'000 people who have suffered ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions) , approx 65'000 of these people suffer long term problems , a further estimated 10-18'000 people DIE . This is just in the UK aswell!! Some success of animal testing/vivisection.



In 2005 government figures show that almost 3million animals were directly used in the vivisection industry. This does not include the 5-6million aimals bred but then were "surplus to requirements" so were killed.

Millions more are bred for their body parts, used as breeding machines , died during transportation, hunted in the wild, etc etc etc and loads more , so estimated numbers for the UK are over 9million annually the number of animals effected by this industry that does not work.

Figures for the whole world are estimated at over 110million animals are used directly in animal experiments, without including the above examples!!!!



People probably wonder , if it does not work , why don't governments phases it out and see the uptodate procedurers that are available. It is quite simple really - MONEY.



The governments dont care about how many animals are tortured, nor about the people it murders inc children, because it gains £billions from it ,regardless of what it actaully is , so of course it doesnt want it banned. It is a money making opportunity regrardless of what it is.



SOME EXAMPLES OF WHY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS FOR DRUG RESEARCH ESP, IS A DANGER TO HUMANS:





Cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, alcohol and glass fibres are all safe to ingest, according to animal studies.

Of 22 drugs shown to have been therapeutic in spinal cord injury in animals, not one is effective in humans.

Of 20 compounds known not to cause cancer in humans, 19 do cause cancer in rodents.



1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.



2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.



3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.



4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.



5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.



6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.



7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.



8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.



9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.



10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days. Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.



12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.



13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.



14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.



15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.



16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.



17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.



18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.



19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.



20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.



21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants. And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.



22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.



23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.



24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.
04-16-2007 12:26 AM
kpickell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

On the contrary, vivisection advocates on VB have sometimes gladly expressed their views, going so far as to enthusiastically proclaim how they would sacrifice their own companion animals to save humans.

My ears were ringing.



Yes, go figure, veg*ns who actually care about the bigger picture.
04-10-2007 08:47 PM
nogardsram I don't think all animal testing should be banned.



Humans are animals, and if humans enter into voluntary tests, I don't see why those should be banned.



Perhaps the question was referencing non-human animals, and in that case, and in light of current human attitudes, I regret that I would have to agree with a ban. I think it would be unfortunate to have to ban this though and it would not be the best way to proceed. Even better would be to acknowledge rights, then a ban would be unnecessary.



I agree with Sevenseas approach of discussing this in terms of the 'commodification' or in terms of seeing animals as property.
04-10-2007 04:41 PM
Tame
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehappyhippo View Post

Another classic Tame response.



indefinite - vague or not clearly defined or stated (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

so a large indefinite number could still be a minority as long as the majority is larger.



"why would you suggest I listen to the minority over the majority?" To assume the majority is right is utterly ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response other than to point out the ridiculousness of it.



Isn't "large" a relative term? If only say, 20% of scientists (and smaller number of those actually in the related fields) thought animal testing wasn't the best option, would it be wise to say that is a "numerous" group? I would say not.



As far as the majority/minority deal, again, why should I believe a very small minority of those in the field? Why should I ignore the majority who credit animal research with helping them to achieve their results?





Quote:

This will be my final response to you Tame as you clearly are not talking sense (or at the very least sense that I understand).

If you did a degree in economics then well done, I see not why that should make you understand statistics and their interpretation. One final question I would appreciate you answering - Since you have such faith with statistics do you trust all statistics or only the ones that back up your believes?



I guess you don't understand what a graduate degree in economics requires. Roughly 25% of my course work consisted of graduate level statistics.

Also, I never said a thing about "believing" statistics. I did take issue with the misguided belief that statistics lie. They do not. They simply tell a story based on the data and methodology used. What we make of that story has nothing to do with statistics.



Quote:

To declare yourself to be right amuses me as your reasoning is as flawed a reasoning as I have seen in some time (in my opinion). Finally you quoting of my ""did" a "maths" degree" and your "earned a graduate degree in economics" response did make me laugh, thank you, I could picture you poking your tongue out and going "nah nah nah nah nah".



I still don't know what it means to "did a maths degree."
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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