What are your thoughts on animal testing?!
Everyday a human being will talk about his or her rights. If a person feels their rights have been taken away from them they will fight back. Therefore is it not hypercritical for humans -who are generally obsessed with their own rights- to torment and kill, innocent and defenseless animals? Why shouldn't animals receive the same rights as humans?
Animal testing is wrong...video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8...
Put aside all testing over animals. By force and incentives more alternatives and people will voluntarily offer their bodies to be tested for responsible medicines. And it is right to do so.
Answers: Animal testing is cruel and inhuman! It is morally wrong to torture animals for our own benefit. Over 3 million animals have been tormented all in the name of research. It has been found that only 5-25% of side effects caused by medicines are accurately predicted. This leads me to wonder what is actually being gained by animal experimentation?
Everyday a human being will talk about his or her rights. If a person feels their rights have been taken away from them they will fight back. Therefore is it not hypercritical for humans -who are generally obsessed with their own rights- to torment and kill, innocent and defenseless animals? Why shouldn't animals receive the same rights as humans?
Animal testing is wrong...video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8...
Put aside all testing over animals. By force and incentives more alternatives and people will voluntarily offer their bodies to be tested for responsible medicines. And it is right to do so.
It's cruel and unneccesary.
Yeah, no one will offer his own flesh for testing, though he may still claim that a righteous or truthful one.
I believe animal testing is a bit of a money making business, they get grants for it and it acts like a safety barrier, can't remember the name, but one drug gave people heart attacks... but it was ok because they said "oh well it was ok when we tried it on animals".
I had this info recently...
(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.
(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'.
__________________
"So don't be too forthright about what you think that I should be, And I'll willingly accept your low opinion of me" Source(s) Science may accept those animals sacrifice themselves for the sake of the world. But, Humans—who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals—have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and ‘animals’ is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them— without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. What a ungrateful bas3rd !
With the advances made in computer technology, programs can simulate possible side effects of products/chemicals test on animals...there are also other methods.
No, I'm not for it unless the product being tested could save lives (not a cosmetic, for example) and animal testing was absolutely necessary to ensure it's safety in humans.
Of course, I'm also neither vegetarian nor vegan...
I think that if it is for frivolous uses (such as make up, perfumes, dyes, etc.), it should be banned completely. However, if it is to further medical research to cure conditions such as cancer, aids, leukemia, heart disease, etc. then it should be allowed. While I believe that the animals should be treated humanely, I also believe that if that type of research and/or testing can save a child or a parent or an individual from a horrible and lingering death, then it is more than worthwhile.
If its between teasting a rat for a cure for HIV or saving a rat from the test then I say more testing on the rat.
Medical science (not cosmetics I dont agree on animal testing for cosmetics) but medical science relies heavily - very heavily on the doing experin experiments on some body and if we dont do these experiments on animals who do we do them too?? People is the next logical alternative and that is unhumane so ufortunately animals are the next best thing. Its not the best but if you want cures for illnesses and find out how medicines effect live cells then one must experiment on animals.
its extremely cruel. i read somewhere that a place in chicago is testing on homeless dogs. its the sad truth.
if animals were aware of there power we wouldnt be able to slaughter or experiment on them
I believe there are some animal rights people who would want people to be the test animals. Animal testing is important to advance the studies of cancer research among other diseases. So long as the animals are treated humainly, there should be no outcry against animal testing. There should be policing to be certain animals are not stolen and blackmarketed for research. On the other hand...if we did not have such restrictions on cloning cells, then live cells could be developed which could be compatable with humans but which were not total living creatures. We need a committee of impartial scientists and people of strong ethical leanings to come up with some criteria. The political community will never reach an agreement about stem cell research.
totally against it, it's simplt cruel
better them than me