Animal Rights

[!ightoftruth]

i have just read this article in the bbc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.st m

I personally think that anyone with any link to huntingdon life sciences or any company which tests on animals is no better than anyone who profited from the holocaust because animal iis just as sick and pointless as the holocaust.

[edited by AB]

[Dr Hungry]

That's such a generalisation!! How much time have you spent with such people at work? If you haven't actually worked in one of these places, I fail to see how you can justify such a claim. You think that they sit about for a while, bump-off some guinea pigs, then put their feet up and watch Neighbours or something? That's the kind of cartoonish stereotype you'd see on the Simpsons, not part of a reasoned arguement. No-one is doing this for fun. It is undoubtedly horrible work and it would not be funded unless it was for a purpose.

[Ethel]

Those that released mink into the countryside have committed a long lasting negligent crime on our native flora, fauna and wildlife.

It is a fact that the average laboratory animal is treated far better than the average pet.

Before you all start shouting at me it is cruel to feed pets chocolalte, cream, bread and milk. Household pets are suffering needlessly through obesity and diabetes because their owners are loving them to death, literally.

Many other pets are being neglected to criminal degree, left to suffer in agony.

I have no problem with laboratory testing on animals, but when I see a dog in a locked car on a hot day I could happily slap the owner.

[!ightoftruth]

Animal experiments serve no purpose to the genral public and are infact are damaging us. There only purpose is to provide is to protect the inhuman drugs companies.

After an American girl suffered eye damage when she had used a eye ointment, she tried to claim damages from the drugs company on the basis that the drug also proved to be an irritant when tested on animals.

The court ruled in favour of the company on the grounds that there was no evidence to show that tests done on rabbits could be used to predict what would be likely to happen to humans.

Or consider the case of a woman who took a major international drug company to court because the drug she had been given had damaged her sight and paralysed her. She produced evidence showing that the company had known for twenty years that in experiments the drug had damaged the eyesight of rabbits, had blinded and killed calves and grown cattle and had killed or paralysed dogs.

The drug company denied negligence, saying that they knew of no evidence that the drug had adverse effects on human beings and apparently dismissing the animal research as irrelevant.

As you can plainly see drugs companies have no intrest in the well being of its customers and cares only about its shareholders.

[!ightoftruth]

I myself have a dog named charlie and he's aa wonderful little chap who i think the world of. I can safely say that he's a lot better of wiith me than being forced to smoke/ metal implants drilled into his skull/ having his eyes destroyed.

The very thought that someone, anyone would be willing to do such horrific things to my charlie or any animal makes me sick to the very core

[Dr Hungry]

Well !ightoftruth, you make some good points, but I still don't feel convinced.

Surely in both examples, animal testing could have in fact helped the patients retain their sight as the animal tests showed floors in the drugs? It was the negligent company's interpretation of the results of the animal tests that were at fault, but the tests themselves could have been incredibly useful and saved them a lot of pain.

The fact is that animal tests could have helped the people involved if anyone had paid attention to the results. If you abolished the animal tests then there would be no chance at all to pick up on these defects, which wouldn't help anyone.

[Coobeastie]

Would that be the night raids were animals that have been bred in captivity are released into the wild to perish as they are incapable of feeding/fending for themselves?

I especially like the fact that you'd use drugs tested on animals because you have a belief that the testing is irrelevant....that makes it alright then doesn't it.

[Coobeastie]

Sorry another thought....are you seriously suggesting that drug companies are spending huge amounts of time and energy on the basis that they like being cruel to animals and not because it helps in the development of drugs?

[!ightoftruth]

To Coobeastie- on your point on my belief about the taking of drugs, as i have allready said in this thread, take the plank out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of mine.

As for the night raids comment. I clearly stated that my defonition of a night raid is the rescuiing and re-homing of animals and not theyre release into the wild.

To clarify my point on the Drugs companies was that they spend this blood money on animal experiments because A it means they dont have to do proper research like that done by the Lord Dowding fund and B it gives them a fool proof legal get out if it all goes pear shaped.

[quirkylots]

hey,

i dont care if im not up to date on all of this but people. Everyone has their own beliefs ans just respect that, quit trying to indoctrinate and critize each other. Just get on with it, theres alot more you could be doing than being petty.

But !ightoftruth - keep up what your doing, it rocks!

[Dr Hungry]

The work of the Dowding fund is admirable, and I am all for a non-animal alternative, but it is still the opinion of many professionals that there is no substitute for animals tests. The people at the Dowding fund are working from the principle that animal tests are wrong and alternatives should be found, whereas people should be aiming for the method that will produce the safest and most secure results, and then making these options as humane as possible. It is my worry that organisations such as the Dowding fund will sacrifice efficacy if it means a more appealing test.

You say that the drug companies test on animals 'so they don't have to do "proper" research'. You once again seem to be assuming that people are deliberately setting out to hurt small furry creatures. No-one wants to do that! They do do it because it is the best way of making drugs safe for humans, not because they enjoy causing pain.

[!ightoftruth]

You are failing to see the obvious fact that animals are so increadibly diffrent that any tests done on them are so increadibly unreliable it makes the data unsafe to transfer to humans that it would be safer to simply flip a coin and thats not a joke. The cases of iatrogenesis (drug induced disease and illness) is on a quite sizeable increase.

And i think that anyone who can just stand by and watch any animal from a mouse to a primate writh in sheer agony as it life is brought to a most disturbing end and just stand by and watch must have some form of problem.

[Dr Hungry]

Yes animals are significantly different from humans in many ways, and leads to high profile cases like the 6 many taking the monoclonal antibody treatment not long ago. But it is only these cases that everyone hears about, because they are shocking and terrible. People don't hear about the cases when animal testing does prevent a dangerous drug being given to people, because it is routine and doesn't make headlines. No-one would pay attention to a headline reading: drug works perfectly well and person got better because of it. The only news that makes it is that which describes the system failing, so the public get the idea that the system always fails because that's all they ever hear about.

I totally agree with you that it must be a horrible job, and I could never do it. But people do do it because they know that they are saving lives.

The increase in iatrogenic pathology cannot be attributed soley to a failure in the animal testing system (if this was the case, why only now would its incidence be on the rise?). Polypharmacy is now common, and it is drug interactions with each other that are most often the cause of iatrogenic disease, not single drugs by themselves.

By the way, I hope you don't think this is a personal attack in any way. I am just interested in what you have to say on the subject - the whole point of AB is to learn from each other after all.

[Dr Hungry]

*6 men rather

[!ightoftruth]

I do not view it as a personal attack at all and of the many people i have debated the issue with you can consider yourself a worthy opponent. I could send you a most extensive list of drugs taken of the market due to extremly serious and often carciogenic after effects seen at no stage of testing due to the physiological diffrences in animals. If you wish me to send it you i will by all means.

The fact remains that animal testing is what i consider to be a dark ages form of science. As the complexity of virus' and diseases get increasingly more difficult the uncertainity in animal tests is simply not acceptable.

Just a few days ago i found that they are using massive virtual computer simulations to try and combat the H5N1 strain of bird flu. It is this research that is the way forward. Not the shoddy business of animal testing.

[Montauk]

Animal testing increases the advances to the field of medicine, keeping people in the third world alive through using western drug companies (Such as GSK). People who believe in the sanctity of animal life I hope never go to their GP to pick up anti-biotics, because they will have undoubtedly have been tested on animals.

Make a defiant stand - It means I won't have to deal with you life-destroying hippies.

[undercovers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/173600.stm
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm ?story=93730&ran=57036

lightoftruth I appreciate your passion on this subject but I can assure you that the scientists involved in developing new medicines and treatments are not concerned with making the drug companies money, protecting them from legal action, or killing small animals � these people are purely concerned with the advancement of science for the betterment of us all, they are passionate people that take what they do seriously and would never needlessly endanger animals. I also count many of these people as my friends so maybe I am bias but I am proud of the work they do and the treatments they pioneer, I hope that no one in your family ever needs to make use of their hard work and dedication but if their efforts are hindered you jeopardise the treatment of billions of people worldwide not just now but also in the future.
You have clearly done a lot of reading but for every example you give a thousand examples of treatments that have been developed using animal testing can be given I would ask you to also consider the good that is being done and apply some proportionality to your reasoning� honestly threatening murder and attacks on scientists can never be the answer and I think hinders your movement and the protection of animals in general.

[!ightoftruth]

to Montauk- How very naive you are. The third world iis being kept ill by western drugs companies. Theyre extortionate prices for, for example the immuno-suppresants needed to treat AIDS mean that many people are dying unnecciserily because of there greed, thus proving my point about drugs companies priority being there shareholders and not the well being of the world.

As for you point on anti-biotics, well if you had had the intellect to actually read this debate thoroughly you would have seen that i have already clearly explained this point.

I also resent you proclaiming that we are all hippies and that you would be glad to see us all dead. If you really want to make a defiant stand i suggest you offer yourslef for testing.

[Dr Hungry]

That would be very interesting if you are willing to do that. I am: [email protected]

I think if it came down to it, I would prefer that any drug given to me, my family or my friends were to be as thoroughly tested as possible and horrible though it is, I still feel that animals can help us in many cases to ensure its safety. You certainly have given me a lot to think about though !ightoftruth. Thanks very much.

[shammydodger]

Thank you light of truth

Before you posted such balanced and reasoned arguments, I was a dirty unbeliever. Not!

I could pick up on many of your points, but I'll satisfy myself with just one general and one specific.

Tests are just that. They are necessary because we don't know for certain when trials with animals are going to translate with conformity to trials with humans. If you are seriously trying to argue that animals have the same rights as humans, then I would have to vehemently disagree.

My specific point is about Thalidomide. This compound exists in two distinct forms. They are actually optical isomers. The form that caused all the problems was one of these two isomers, and that is quite rightly banned. The other isomer is currently undergoing clinical trials for a variety of treatments and is showing great promise. It may well be passed for use in the near future. That would not have happened but for testing on animals, particularly after the furore concerning the other isomer.

You are quite entitled to your opinion. As I am to mine. But until the likes of you are quite willing to step up to the plate and offer themselves for testing with "drugs" that have not previously been tested on animals, then I am inclined to take your vehement protests with a cellar full of salt.

[Vivacia]

!ightoftruth - i totally agree with everything you are saying. it shocks me how ignorant the people are that condone animal testing. the person who compared feeding chocolate to pets (which i know is bad for them yes) to the torture and cruelty of the animal labs is obviously totally unaware of the agony the animals have to endure - i dont understand how else she/he could have made such a ridiculous statement!

To anyone that condones animal testing - i ask you to give an example of when testing on animals has directly helped develop a drug / medicine which could not have been developed using an alternative humane technique? (if you dont know what these alternatives are i suggest you do some research before replying)