Could human bear this kind of reseach on him?!
http://www!.veganpeace!.com/animal_cruelty!.!.!.
http://www!.veganpeace!.com/animal_cruelty!.!.!.
Is there any kind of people in other sections of Y!A that ever worried and outcry seeing this phenomenon!? Yes!? If not, why!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
http://www!.veganpeace!.com/animal_cruelty!.!.!.
Is there any kind of people in other sections of Y!A that ever worried and outcry seeing this phenomenon!? Yes!? If not, why!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
Nazi dictators tested their power on the defenseless human!. But today, we have Human Rights!
Animal testing is cruel and almost useless!. It really irks me when people say we need animal testing!. There's a more humane way of testing then what they do now!. Here's a few facts!
Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities!. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as “pound seizure”)!.
Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown!. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U!.S!. laboratories every year
There can be an end to it but it requires us to stand up and stop listening to those who are standing up FOR medical testing on animals!. Read up!
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is not doing its job!. In its 10 years of existence, ICCVAM has approved only one non-animal test method that originated in the U!.S!. This is not because there are no non-animal test methods—ICCVAM's European counterpart has approved more than 20 non-animal test methods!. A recent landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences, our government's chief advisory body on science issues, entitled "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century" called for the use of more efficient non-animal test methods for testing dangerous substances: "Recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans!. The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing!."
Www@FoodAQ@Com
Animal testing is cruel and almost useless!. It really irks me when people say we need animal testing!. There's a more humane way of testing then what they do now!. Here's a few facts!
Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities!. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as “pound seizure”)!.
Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown!. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U!.S!. laboratories every year
There can be an end to it but it requires us to stand up and stop listening to those who are standing up FOR medical testing on animals!. Read up!
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) is not doing its job!. In its 10 years of existence, ICCVAM has approved only one non-animal test method that originated in the U!.S!. This is not because there are no non-animal test methods—ICCVAM's European counterpart has approved more than 20 non-animal test methods!. A recent landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences, our government's chief advisory body on science issues, entitled "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century" called for the use of more efficient non-animal test methods for testing dangerous substances: "Recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans!. The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing!."
Www@FoodAQ@Com
There are both cruelties in animal testing and benefits!. Cancer has been halted in people that were slated to die thanks to the testing of thalidomide (yes- the infamous anti-angiogenetic drug that caused so many problems before) on cancerous mice!? It saved many human lives and has meant the world to hundreds of families!. And mice died for it!. Are a few hundred lab mice worth more than that many human's lives!? I believe so!.
I do have disagreements with testing on dogs and the like, for other than animal products (Frontline for example) but it happens!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I do have disagreements with testing on dogs and the like, for other than animal products (Frontline for example) but it happens!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Considering that those animals look pretty dead -- I'd say, no, a human would not be able to survive whatever research they did on those animals!.
But really, what are you asking!? Are you trying to figure out if more than than not have a conscience -- or are you trying to make a point and phrasing it as a question!?
I don't support animal testing and try to buy shampoo and such products from companies who don't do animal testing!. But about medicines or cancer treatments etc, I don't think I will refuse to get cancer treatment for myself or a family member, even if hundreds of dogs died for it!.
I suppose that makes me a bad person!. Www@FoodAQ@Com
But really, what are you asking!? Are you trying to figure out if more than than not have a conscience -- or are you trying to make a point and phrasing it as a question!?
I don't support animal testing and try to buy shampoo and such products from companies who don't do animal testing!. But about medicines or cancer treatments etc, I don't think I will refuse to get cancer treatment for myself or a family member, even if hundreds of dogs died for it!.
I suppose that makes me a bad person!. Www@FoodAQ@Com
Could you please attach a link with the exact "research" they were doing!? Typically, they use rats and mice (for their particular anatomy and size)!. I'm fine with that!. If they didn't sacrifice a few mice, plenty of diseases would be completely unstudied!.
EDIT: I just found the exact page with the pictures (http://www!.veganpeace!.com/animal_cruelty!.!.!. for anyone interested)!. I don't believe it outlines the circumstances per say, but beyond that, animal rights issues (esp!. concerning testing) is very tricky!.
One has to find where we draw the line between our health and some choice animals!. Is human-testing any more ethical!? I'm vegetarian personally, and even struggle swatting flies (those things get me to evaluate my view on the sanctity of life everytime =/)!.
Thinking of alternatives are important!. Computer simulations are simply too linear to consider [every] single complex reaction in the body!. We can definitely reduce the number and improve the methods!. People that suggest avoiding tests altogether are simply ignorant of our realities but strict enforcement of the codes of practice are definitely needed!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
EDIT: I just found the exact page with the pictures (http://www!.veganpeace!.com/animal_cruelty!.!.!. for anyone interested)!. I don't believe it outlines the circumstances per say, but beyond that, animal rights issues (esp!. concerning testing) is very tricky!.
One has to find where we draw the line between our health and some choice animals!. Is human-testing any more ethical!? I'm vegetarian personally, and even struggle swatting flies (those things get me to evaluate my view on the sanctity of life everytime =/)!.
Thinking of alternatives are important!. Computer simulations are simply too linear to consider [every] single complex reaction in the body!. We can definitely reduce the number and improve the methods!. People that suggest avoiding tests altogether are simply ignorant of our realities but strict enforcement of the codes of practice are definitely needed!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
If animal testing was banned drug companies would have no choice but to conduct similar test on human children bought or stolen from their parents!. There are people out there willing to do it, both sell their kids and do the testing!.Www@FoodAQ@Com