by Wannabe Superhero on May 16th, 2008

Question

Help answer this question below.

Is it even possible for the animal rights people to see that when we test a product on an animal, its safer? what should scientists experiment on? humans?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 26 helpful answers below.

by AntigoneRising on May 16th, 2008
Well, I am all for animal rights, and I think we need to balance what the benefit is against the harm caused. By all means, experiment on lab rats to see if your new treatment cures cancer or world hunger.

However, to test skin lotion, how to color your hair, a new shade of lipstick, how your razor works, etc... Animals should not be suffering for this. If it really means all that much to you, you should be willing to submit for testing yourself.
Comments
- Balanced as usual AR. I tend to agree. Animal rights activists wouldn't but that's their problem.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- The question isn't "What amount of animal suffering should be permitted in order for humans to enjoy better health?" You should be asking "How many people have been killed or injured because of misleading animal data?" (eg. thalidiomide) and "How many medications that could have saved human lives were withheld from production because they injured or killed animals in lab experiments?" (eg. Penicillin kills, hamsters and guinea pigs)
  ...
  Is it even possible for advocates of animal testing to acknowledge that there is a difference in the knowledge base of one's doctor and the knowledge base of Fido's veterinarian?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- "How many people have been killed or injured because of misleading animal data?" This is also a relevant question, as is the accuracy of computer modelling (which is pretty recent).
  - Report
  by AntigoneRising on April 20th, 2009
- Clinical observation is older than animal experiments. It is also the foundation of our current day knowledge of medicine. Clinical data can be used and applied safely towards human patients. Vivisection, records have accumulated voluminous amounts of data that should have antiquated the practice centuries ago. Autopsies answer questions like "what caused this person's death?" and set forth the framework, which experimenting on every animal on the planet could not do, for understanding nuances of human anatomy. However, if one wishes to learn why rats die, it makes more sense to study dead rats.
  ...
  Computer simulations are better predictors of how human cells will bind with a compound. They also are predictive of where and in what amounts a drug will be metabolized in the human body. I don't think that software designers are building programs that make those predictions for rats. If the goal is understanding humans, why should they repeat the mistakes of other biomedical researchers?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Autopsies were forbidden by the church in the middle ages. Animal experiments flourished and medical progress was stagnant. Even during that day in age it would have made much more sense to study cadavers than goats to better understand the human body. I fear that we are entering into a new dark age of medicine because animal experiments are making a comeback.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Structure activity analysis provides insight into how a particular compound will react with human cells (this technique could also be used for other specie's cells, but we are probably better off using the limited funds for results that are applicable for humans). Computer simulations take data that is already known through observing various human cells and molecular compounds under a microscope then transcribing them into a computer database. There is a program called COMPACT that had an 82% accuracy rate when predicting human toxicity, far more accurate than animal-models. COMPACT could have predicted the toxicity of Opren, which was withdrawn because it caused liver damage in humans but not animals.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 21st, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by slothmister on May 16th, 2008
Indeed they should be tested on humans! After all, WE are the ones who will benefit from the product! Not the poor innocent animal they test it on.
Comments
- alot of animals are extremely similar to us. there fore when tested apon, it is extremely accurate. but think about this, would you rather be tested on or and animal? would you rather feel the pain or would you rather go home and let the animal deal with it?
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on May 16th, 2008
- Is there any difference between a human and an animal? Think about it yourself! What makes you superior to a dog or cat?
  - Report
  by slothmister on May 16th, 2008
- the fact that we have a brain. im talking about how a chemicale affects you, don't try to twist my words around.
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on May 16th, 2008
- So you are saying dogs and cats do not have brains? That simple little comment there just goes to show how pathetic your ideas are. I suggest either waiting with arguments like this until you are a little older (assuming your a child) or, (if that assumption is incorrect) do some research into animals and feelings ect.
  - Report
  by slothmister on May 16th, 2008
- excuse me, as in smarts. there you happy now. we are smarter than dogs and cats. that is what i ment, gosh and i thought i took things a little to literal. and for your information im 17 years old. i know alot about animal feelings too but its better to test on them than it is on humans. this is why they invented pain killers after all.
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on May 16th, 2008
- You just showed exactly how immature you are there (no offence intended).
  Pain killers were discovered, not invented. They are used to help ease pain and have NOTHING to do with animal testing.
  .
  Now, who are you to say we are more intelligent than an animal? Do you have ANY evidence for that at all? Have you ever been an animal? Do you KNOW for a fact they are not intelligent? What gives you the right to cause pain and harm to an animal? What makes you feel superior???
  .
  A much better solution is simple human testing under controlled conditions and paying the tester.
  - Report
  by slothmister on May 16th, 2008
- i totally agree with sloth. sorry robo but you have a complete lack of empathy and dont know what your talkin about. yes technichlly we are smarter than dogs and cats whatever but it doesnt make them worth any less. your "smarts" dont give you value
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on May 16th, 2008
- i agree with you robo. some drugs just need to betested on animals. that being said imnot ok with makeup and things like that but certain drugs we have now would never have been found without animal testing.
  - Report
  by LindsayJ. on May 16th, 2008
- I think it's better to say we are more complicated and a have a more sophisticated manner of communicating. At what is important to us, we are "smarter". But for instance if we left a puppy and a baby in the wilderness the puppy would most likely thrive and the baby would just lay there and die. It really just all depends on what you're considering smart.
  - Report
  by Hotha on May 16th, 2008
- Exactly Hotha, you hit the nail on the head!
  - Report
  by slothmister on May 16th, 2008
- hmmm... its intresting to see how you actually view this.
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on May 19th, 2008
- because I value my life and the life of my fellow humans more... because I am the dominent species I am to say what is more valuable than what. if an animal wants to challenge that they can either attempt to overthrow man or enter into a logical debate. I fully agree in treating animals as best we can... just as the gazelle is for the use of the cheetah, everything is for our use.
  besides, attacking someones argument based on his age? that is an ad hominem attack. and how immature are you? discovery and invention are a blurry line when it comes to chemicals.
  the reason a baby human will die is because our brains are mostly a blank slate. we are designed to be taught and learn. animals have much more hardwired in their brains so they know more at birth. that was a stupid argument.
  tell me those of you who preach against animal testing, expecially you sloth who sees the authority from which one speaks to be a part of its validity... how many of you have participated in drug testing?
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- I for one have participated in drug testing and still do. Only last week I underwent experimental nasal surgery to try and open up my nasal passage.
  .
  Your comments about us being "the dominant species" are fundamentally flawed. Think of two examples: 1. The elephant, a much larger stronger animal than us, in a straight fight, we stand no chance.
  2. Aliens, say an alien species come to earth after having destroyed all other life forms on their planet thanx to testing on them. They decide that as they are "the more dominant" species they will use us humans to test on. Hmmmm nice situation to be in.
  - Report
  by slothmister on March 29th, 2009
- I did not say the strongest... I said dominent... you would be hard pressed to find ANY animal weaker pound for pound than humans. china has many times the manpower america does, but america dominates due to technology, if you made every american fight every chineese with sticks china would win without question but just as there is more to the equasion than numbers, there is more to the equasion than strength.
  as the dominent species the aliens would be stupid not to value their lives more than ours. however in their attempts to use us for their purposes they would learn that we do not cooperate well in subjugation just as france, and russia learned hundreds of years ago.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 29th, 2009
- First of all, China is more dominant than the US, to think otherwise is to be ignorant.
  Secondly, not sure what you mean when you talk about France and Russia.
  Thirdly, who is to say that any aliens would a) care that we do not co-operate or b) even notice that we do not co-operate.
  Have u ever seen any videos of animal testing? The animals do NOT stand still and just take it.
  - Report
  by slothmister on March 29th, 2009
- I was refering militarily, and the fact that it is up for debate dispite having a fraction of populace shows how inteligence allows a physicaly weaker entity to dominate.
  in france and russia those who dominated the nations were overthrown by masses of the weak as will happen in america soon
  my point about us not cooperating is that testing on us would be far more costly to them and their property than testing on our animals.
  as the dominant species we not only have responsibilities to animals as most activists assert, but we also have rights to their use given us by our dominence. wether as food or research, all animal lifeforms use other lifeforms for their betterment. hell, many predators (IE, cats and orcas) use other animals for sport. if you and your ilk would stop your impossible crusades maybe enough people could join together to stop chicken battery egg factories and boxraised veal. but until then far more animals than just those whos suffering brings betterment to mankind will continue to suffer.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 29th, 2009
- Militarily China have more troops, more weapons, more ships, more planes, more nukes ect ect ect.
  As for the testing thing, no they would not have more trouble, they could simply pop us in a cage 50cm x 50cm x 2m and we would not be able to move away.
  - Report
  by slothmister on March 30th, 2009
- exactly!
  if a more dominant and more inteligent species comes along do we automatically become to them what animals are to you,TAP?
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 30th, 2009
- wrong, we have 25 times the nukes china has and roughly as many as all other nations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty combined. they have more obsolite weapons. the point of animal testing is to observe symptoms, lab rats are actualy quite well treated except as far as the tests go because they need them healthy and of a predictible behavior so they can detect behavioral changes.
  kiera. a new species becomes dominant, if we can not challenge their superiority then we are subject to their wills. the question is how long with we wait before overthrowing those who currently dominate us with economic slavery.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 30th, 2009
- You are wrong, check out National Geographic magazine from December 2008 and you will see the US is THIRD in number of nuclear weapons behind Russia and then China. Also, Russia have the most powerful weapons.
  As for your opinions on animal testing, you are obviously a simply minded bigot who does not treat any animal with respect. It would not surprise me if you beat your wife and children, good day to you.
  - Report
  by slothmister on March 30th, 2009
- WOW. that is an amazing deduction. dude, you need help. it is because of people like you that people like me can't make any progress towards animal rights. someone like me speaks out against chicken battery egg factories and boxraised veal, everyone lumps me in the same groups as you.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 31st, 2009
- how do you feel about the holocaust experiments?
  the German doctors were dominant over their Jewish patience.
  
  The Jews were inferior so it was okay, right?
  
  http://www.auschwitz.dk/doctors.htm
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 31st, 2009
- I THINK (not feel, feelings have no place in debate.) that to consider animals equal to humans is rediculous. jews are the same species and have the same capabilidies as germans. they were only dominated over by political means. a role reversal would have taken nothing more than a political reversal. animals are lower life forms. just as plants are lower life forms than animals. how many tears do you shed when you eat? I guarantee that orcas do not contemplate the morality of playing baseball with baby seals... and yes, they do that.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 31st, 2009
- and not only that but their experimentation was not done as humanely as possible. there are many of us who are smart enough to understand animals can be subjected to our needs, but should be treated well while in that service. but as I said before, our voice gets lumped in with yours and people just roll their eyes because of it.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 31st, 2009
- What about cannibals? People that eat other people? How many tears do they shed when they eat their fellow man?
  - Report
  by slothmister on March 31st, 2009
- are you compairing yourself to canabals? I was mierly pointing out that you use lower lifeforms for you benefit.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 31st, 2009
- Didn't people go blind from an eye surgery that was perfected on rabbits? I don't have the citation handy, but I could look up that one and many others. You people do know that there is a very good reason why you should go to a medical doctor and not a veterinarian, don't you?
  ...
  You can feel free to use dog data in determining how to treat your symptoms. However, I don't think it is fair for you to insist that medicine for dogs, rats ... ect. is the same as medicine for humans. Those of us who realize that should have funding directed towards more effective research methods that lead to understanding human biology (eg. in vitro).
  ...
  Advil will cause kidney failure in your dog (but not your cat), Tylenol will cause kidney failure in your cat (but not your dog). How many people do you suppose died because a drug or treatment that could have provided a remedy did not prove itself safe through animal protocols?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- I would not be in the least bit surprised if something prefected on rabbits had flaws on humans... but they had a LOT more success than they would have had they just jumped straight to humans without any other trials.
  noone has claimed that animals respond exactly the same as animals, mierly that animal testing makes human trials safeR. "in vetro" is a fetrilization technique... studied in other mamals before being done on humans, not a research technique.
  you are talking like the only scenerios are death or perfection. you know what. keep wasting your efforts on foolish dead ends like this and chicken batteries and boxraised veal will continue to exist because you think everything is all or nothing.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 17th, 2009
- For those of you that think rabbit eyes are biologically isomorphic to human eyes: Radial keratotomy is a surgery that is performed to improve vision without the aid of glasses. Instead of studying the regenerative properties of the human eye through computer simulations, in vitro research, or other modalities that are predictive of how the human eye will react to a given treatment, medical researchers perfected the operation on rabbits. Again, a rabbit's eye is not a rat's eye or a human's eye. The first humans to undergo the surgery were rendered blind. The surgery is now safe for humans because they learned about the regenerative properties of the human eye through the failed surgeries. Sources: Am J Ophthalmol Jpn 1953,35:823; Acta Soc. Ophthalmol Jpn 1951, 55:219; Folia Ophthalmol Jpn 1979,30:841; and others.
  ...
  TAPrice, you should explain to the people who went blind and their families how animal experiments are great, and rabbit eyes are no different than human eyes ...
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- You should tell them that it was a wise investment to perform the surgery on rabbits instead of using all the funds to garner data about how the human eye regenerates.
  ...
  The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on both sides, but the human cornea can only regenerate on one side. It is too bad that people had to go blind for this information to be part of the reservoir of medical knowledge that is applicable to humans.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- Slothmister, I generally agree with what you say, that my problem with animal experiments is that there are medical research methods that actually can predict the human reaction without putting any humans at risk. Every dollar spent on animal tests (1) generates misleading data and; (2) could have been spent on medical research methods that, although are not perfect, do have predictive power.
  ...
  I am surprised that you are advancing the position you hold on this matter.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
31 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on May 16th, 2008
If "products" were only tested on non-human animals, we wouldn't have many of the medication we have. Classic example is that asprin is toxic to many non-human animals.

Give a dog chocolate, and it will die.

My point is, we are at a point that we understand enough about the human design that we really don't need to test on non-human animals. Computer testing is good.
Comments
- i think the value of computer testing is way overestimated
  - Report
  by purplecows on May 16th, 2008
- It's actually come a long way. I know several doctors and they all agree that it is the way to go for preliminary testing, and that final testing needs to be done on humans.
  - Report
  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on May 17th, 2008
- nelson... guess what... computer testing IS the first step. that creates predictions, if those predictions come true in animal testing then human testing occurs. tell me... have you ever submitted yourself for drug testing? elimination of animal testing increases risks many times over.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- Thank you Nelson for providing some sanity to this conversation. I look at the claims that animal testers make as being similar to the person at the equator who sells rocks that repel polar bears. Animal experiments have not contributed to human health at best. But, I fear that they have killed and injured many people who do not understand that there is a good reason why you don't take fido to your doctor (a MD or DO) and you do not see fido's doctor (a VMD) when you are sick.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- Actually, computer testing simulates how a particular compound will bind with human cells. They are of no value when determining how a particular species of animal cells' will react to a given compound.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- failed stoic. are you an artist? english major? historian? politician? because you seem incapable of understanding any part of biology or the scientific process in general
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 17th, 2009
- What is it that I don't understand about biology? Please, enlighten me as to where my understanding of it is deficient by providing specific information.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- humans are animals. all animal are different from eachother but have similarities. these similarities can be used to extrapolate data to improve the likelyhood of success on another species. inductive reasoning must be utilised in science. not everything can be proven without margin of error and animal testing desreases that margin of error. there is no absolute. even a medical procedure perfected on humans may be ineffective on some humans. does that mean studies into it's effectiveness on humans are moot? no.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- You stated, "even a medical procedure perfected on humans may be ineffective on some humans." Doesn't this make testing on a rat in order to find the human reaction even more ridiculous?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- no. just as behavior on other humans indicates in inclination... also how it reacts to animals does the same to a lesser degree.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- I don't understand what you are talking about. Stop taking your experimental medication for a month, and we may then continue this discussion. Otherwise, I have trouble following your logic.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Kierafaye on May 16th, 2008
yes they should be tested on humans. people sign up to get tested on anyways and they get paid and everything
Comments
- yes we do... and the fact that this product passed the animal testing makes it MUCH safer for us. without animal testing these tests would be blind and as such would have huge mistakes and many human deaths. there would be less of us A: because we do fear death and B: because every drug would have deaths. I value human life more than animal life. eliminating animal testing would grind medical advance to a halt. do you even have half the nerve to be experimented on? if you did you would know how important animal testing is to keep you safe.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- good for you that you feel that way, I completely disagree.
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 27th, 2009
- of course you do... you aren't a human guinnea pig. your life is not made safer as a direct consequence of animal testing... it is however made better indirectly. do you have any friends or family members who need drugs which were invented in the past 60 years? without animal testing, drug development would end because the cost would be astronomical. all cancer treatments, most antihistamines, and all aids therapies could not be developed without animal testing.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- i actually was gonna sign up to become a 'testee' but there werent any companies that do that close enough to me so your wrong, i actually wanted to be a human guinnea pig.
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 28th, 2009
- you have no clue how many humans would die in that job without animal testing.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 28th, 2009
- i have plenty of a clue, and its with their consent. no one forces them to sign up for it just as no one would have forced me to sign up but i wanted to anyways just as i still do and would.
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 28th, 2009
- what if there was a 10% chance od death and 75% chance of long term damage? that is what it would be for first stagers if there was no animal testing. where do you live that there are no facilities near you... I travel 3 hours to tacoma for mine.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 28th, 2009
- i dont have a car so i cant go distances past 30 minutes from my house. right now im living in Chandler, AZ.
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 28th, 2009
- Dedicated Phase 1 : 734 West Highland Avenue : Phoenix, Arizona 85013 : (602) 788-3963
  MDS Pharma Services : 2420 W. Baseline Rd : Tempe, AZ 85044 : (888) 257-9393
  look at that, the metropolitan area in which you live has 2 such facilities. lucky you :) though you are still protected by animal testing no matter where you go. I do not have your personal address, google lists the facilities at 15 miles/18 minutes and 29 miles/38 minutes from the city center of chandler
  and to my understanding valley metro has realy good coverage both by area and schedule.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 29th, 2009
- but when you sign up it should be a breaze because you do not need to worry about listed side effects because those are obtained by prior testing, you believe in testing on humans such as yourself without that knowledge.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 29th, 2009
- it doesnt change that I would prefer that humans be the only things tested on.
  - Report
  by Kierafaye on March 29th, 2009
- well then it chould be no problem for you to put your body where your mouth is... especially the "dedicated phase 1" because that is as close to untested as you can get. if you believe humans should be the first tests then you should have no problem being in the first human tests. after all, your desire for no animal testing puts human guinneapigs at far greater risk than you would be taking being in the first stage human testing.
  besides, it is not often someone gets to make money supporting their beliefs. I am jealous, you have the opportunity to benefit while making yourself a more credible voice for your stand...
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 29th, 2009
- They do test on people. Since animal tests are of dubious predictive value, the first person to ingest a drug during a phase I trial is being given the same amount of consideration as the lab animals that took it before him or her without knowledge of the outcome.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- you would make a horrible insurance adjuster, bookie, sataistician, loan officer, or anything else that deals in chance. you are speaking as though inductive reasoning is not valid and only deductive reasoning can help you.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 17th, 2009
- Look TA, you are being conned!!! Those unscrupulous crooks have convinced you that rat medicine is human medicine. Since you are a human test subject you should be the one demanding that they use protocols that are proven to have predictive power.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- you are an idiot. and there is nothing in that statment worthy of direct responce. I do not argue science with politicians.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Alright, live in your fantasy world where the amount of animal suffering allocated to living animals on planet earth is fixed. In this fantasy world we can simply expense the total amount of suffering to rats and rabbits so that the human bill is lower.
  ...
  Don't say that you have never been informed about the harm that animal data causes. I guess you signed the inform consent form, but they don't give statistics that would provide the proof needed to undermine their business.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
17 comments | Post one | Permalink
by speighty on May 22nd, 2008
should be tested on murderers serial killers and the like at least there giving somthing back then
Comments
- I'd rather test on executives who have murdered and raped our economy to the point of economic slavery of the masses.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Babycakes Deux on May 16th, 2008
The biggest problem I have with them testing on animals is that it's so often done inhumanely. They have subjected animals to burns and many other painful things and given them nothing to protect them from the pain.

I understand the need for animal testing, but lets not put those poor animals through hell for our benefit.
Comments
- Point taken, and perhaps we should consider this.
  - Report
  by deltabtry on May 16th, 2008
- Thanks deltabtry!!
  - Report
  by Babycakes Deux on May 16th, 2008
- and how often is that? 2% 5%. yes animal testing pushes dosing to the level of damage in small samples, but that is because we need to know where that level is.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by --Irahyn.says.Tks.4.Pts. --- on May 16th, 2008
Remember the tests that were done on humans regarding syphilis? I am not sure of the details but wasn't it black soldiers who volunteered for the tests and weren't told what it was? It seems like there should/could be a third option available somehow, somewhere. Maybe in the lab itself.
Comments
- Cloning perhaps but even then we are playing with morality.
  - Report
  by deltabtry on May 16th, 2008
- Hey, thanks for that briefing on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. I appreciate it. *SMILES*
  - Report
  by --Irahyn.says.Tks.4.Pts. --- on May 17th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Hotha on May 16th, 2008
I think we should test it on humans. If they're for humans and there are humans willing to test it then by all means test away. I think testing animals is a practical means of testing but it's not very humanitarian.
Comments
- i think we should test on corporate executives
  - Report
  by purplecows on May 16th, 2008
- ok, while I am with purple on this, that is because I dispise them worse than murderers.
  the humans are willing to test it AFTER the animal testing has occured. I AM a human guinnea pig and I take great comfort in knowing that the drug has passed animal testing before it gets to me.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- Testing a cat's reaction of a medication will accurately predict how other cats will react to the drug. For example, a single dose of Tylenol will kill a cat. Do you refuse to take Tylenol because you think that, "testing animals is a practical means of testing"?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by weatherman taking week or so off on May 16th, 2008
The products should be tested on Animal Rights Activists.
Comments
- i agree
  - Report
  by wookieblu on June 15th, 2008
- BRAVO!!!!
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- Lol. You're right, they should stand up for what they believe in.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- yeah but they can't do that... they talk a good game but when it comes down to it they don't have the balls to put their bodies where their mouth is http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2994608 this person expresses that she wants to be a human guinneapig dispite the risks but there are no facilities near her. I show her 2 within half an hour and she doesn't have the courage to follow through even WITH the animal testing protecting her... without it there is no chance she would do first stage testing
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 12th, 2009
- I've done my research on animal rights groups, followed the money trail and the like. That's why not one penny will ever go from my pocket to their house addition for one of their execs. Animal welfare...ohh yeah. SPCA all the way. World Wildlife Fund, hell yeah. PETA and the like...nope.
  These types of groups often don't think far enough ahead about the consequences of their actions. Sea Shepherd Society for example, tries to ram shipping. They rammed a coast guard vessel during last years seal hunt. The CG wasn't hunting. The CG were observing and keeping protesters and fishermen apart. Suppose someone was killed on either ship? Suppose one ship went down? The PCB's, bunker oil and other toxins on board a vessel now kill what Sea Shepherd says it wants to save as well as other species in a fragile environment. How stupid is that?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- I think that animal rights activists should have a right to refuse consideration of veterinary medical data when discussing their health. Perhaps you people that think that animal physiology is the same as human physiology should be concerned because animal studies have proven that when a dog's body temperature reaches 98.6 degrees the animal is already dead or likely to die. My doctor, however, will ignore the animal data and know that I should not receive medication because my body temperature is 98.6 degrees. Do you go to a veterinarian for yearly check-ups?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
- Have you ever been to a doctor? Chances are that if you did, do you think any medication or therapy prescribed came out of that Doc's ass? Ok...for arguments sake...lets use people. When are you signing up? I'd honestly like to see you sign up for a medical experiment that benefits mankind. Go nuts. I'll be against animal testing for potential cures for any damn thing if you people would walk the walk instead of talk the Sh$t. Sign the hell up!!!
  Oddly...that ain't happening is it?
  Failed...this is where you people lose any possible credibility you could garner...you don't research. You have zero science behind you. None. What you do have is media spin. That's losing credibility with the " let's make ice cream outta mom's boobies". How idiotic is that? Plenty unless you decide to donate your mamaries prior to donating your body to science while you're still alive. If you're a guy...same friggin' thing. Go nuts. Milk your chest off. If you manage that then donate that to science. God knows they need to study aberrations from the norm as a control measure.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 16th, 2009
- scuba, I found your ramblings to be totaly incoherent there... so maybe he got the point because logic is lost on him. but I doubt it. :)
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 17th, 2009
- My point is that animal rights activists are partaking of products that came from animal research. If Animal rights folk want to stop animal testing on medical products...they ought to step up and take that animals place.
  The reference of milk is regarding PETA's stance that human females ought to be supplying the world's milk supply for ice cream products. I thought it was common knowledge that they came out with that ridiculous idea. Apparently you haven't seen it.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 17th, 2009
- scuba... note the smile at the end of my sentance... I was mocking stoic, not you... but thanks for the info, I did not know about that milk thing.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 17th, 2009
- Lol, no issues Tap...but look that human milk farm thing up. Boggles the mind what that group comes up with.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- I can't find it anymore but I asked a question about wether Animal Rights would be more advanced if the extremes of PETA and ALF did not exist... when someone like me speaks against chicken battery egg factories or box raised veal we are lumped in with the same group who sayes no animal products... and I am deffinately NOT... I eat more meat than the average texan, I just believe in life animals need to be given as good a life as reasonably possible and being able to walk around is deffinately reasonable. I even support animal testing as it makes one of my income sources (human guinnea pig) much safer.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Scubabob, what the hell are you talking about? All I was saying is that I go to a doctor when I am sick. He or she uses data garnered from clinical observation which depicts how humans metabolize a particular treatment, in vitro research with HUMAN tissue (otherwise discarded from biopsies, surgeries, autopsies ... that is also predictive of the HUMAN biochemical reaction. They also use data from computer simulations which have predictive power regarding how a compound's therapeutic or toxic qualities when it binds with HUMAN cells (human cells are distinct from rat cells for those of you that have never taken a basic biology course). My doctor finds these bits of information in medical journals.
  ...
  It sounds like the health insurance plan that you are on would be great for my pet dog and rat; but I will not opt for coverage under your health insurance plan when it comes to the health of me and my family.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- My turn. What the hell are YOU talking about Failed? Where does my national health care come into this?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- FS, you are right, animals and humans have nothing in common. humans are the only oxygen breathers, bee stings are only designed to repell humans and same with snake venom...
  WRONG. there are many paralels where animals behave in a similar manner to humans and can be used to reduce risk in research. noone has claimed that humans are exactly the same as animals, only that it makes it safer for us human guinnea pigs. human testing is done after animal testing reduces risk... guess what, for leperousy they only test on armadillos... this isn't just some random decision, but is because armadillos are the only nonhumans which can catch human leperousy.
  testing on tissue is far less effective because it only tests ONE tissue and does not test systems together nor does it test WORKING tissue because no human tissue is independantly alive
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Yes, and bowling balls also are influenced by gravity to the tune of 9.8 meters per second squared. However, I go to a doctor for checkups, not a bowling ball repairman despite having something in common with the bowling ball. Think what you want. You may go to a veterinarian that specializes in rats; I will still go to a doctor.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- scubabob, you seem to be a proponent of combining veterinary medicine with human medicine. Well-educated people know that this proposition is extremely dangerous and will cost the health and lives of humans.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- Tap, animal welfare would be further along than it is now, since monies directed to animal rights in the common mistaken impression that the two are the same thing, could be used for the animals themselves rather than funding media campaigns. For sure. Honest organizations like the SPCA or even conservation groups like the WWF suffer from lack of resources to use for animal welfare. These are the people that are actually doing something for animals that's tangible and concrete but sadly they're funding hurts because of let's call it "competition" for the animal well being dollar.
  
  @Failed. Look up the gene comparisons on mice for example, to that of humans. Sure there are going to be differences...they're different species but they're close enough for a lot of research to take place and produce valid results. So failed...when are you going to sign up to be a test subject for a first round test on a medication? One right out of a computer simulation. They could dose you up with AIDS and try couldn't they? I imagine it would be ok and that you'll be fine, right? What you're failing to grasp here is that computer modeling may work for some things and it may not for others. How do you program something you don't understand?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- I get it though, you prefer Dr Mengele's approach.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- Scubabob, this has nothing to do with animal rights. This is about patient rights. If you wish to purchase veterinary medical coverage for the health of you and your family, that is your right. I will also purchase the vivisection data that was done on rats to promote the health of my pet rat when I take him to a veterinarian. I will also purchase the information garnered from dog vivisection to promote the health and well being of my pet dog. So your health insurance plan is very similar to the one that my pets have. Maybe you eat rat pellets (which are healthful for rats) and science diet for dogs (which is healthful for dogs) too.
  ...
  However, when it comes to insuring the health of me and my family, our doctors use data that is appropriate for humans. We also consult nutritionists that advise against eating rat pellets.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- Failed...allow me to remind you:
  "Is it even possible for the animal rights people to see that when we test a product on an animal, its safer? what should scientists experiment on? humans? "
  
  That sort of does indicate that it has something to do with animal rights since that's the question at hand and what was being discussed. You've strayed into nation health care schemes. Some of which don't even administer to research institutions.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- @Scubabob: If you had a bad case of diarrhea, would you take a medication for it that was proven safe and effective in rats, cats, dogs, and rabbits? If you had an infection, would you take an antibiotic that kills hamsters and guinea pigs?
  ...
  Do you believe that the human lives have not been injured or lost because animal experiment data generated misleading information?
  Do you believe that there are treatments that could have improved or saved human lives but are not used now because they didn't pass animal tests?
  Do you believe that there is no better way to spend limited medical research funds, which could save human lives if spent appropriately, then vivisection?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- I think that people who believe that animals are accurate predictors of a human biological reaction to a particular medication should be the first humans to take that medication.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- You obviously didn't look up the genetic similarities in the animals used. Of course not, you're a PETA supporter and that would burst a bubble.
  I think PETA should step up to the plate and do something instead of whining. If they're so gung ho on animal testing being banned, then either put up and shut up or use the 33 million dollars they received last year and do a little research of their own on a substitute. They won't because that will simply eliminate them from their spotlight. What will they make money off of next?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- Scubabob, you and other people who believe that data gathered from animal experiments heal more people than they kill or injure should be the first humans to take the medication or undergo the surgery that worked wonderfully in a different species.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- I like how you are on that merry go round and can't get off. Is there a switch or something I can flip for you? PETA is the organization so concerned about it...why don't they step up? All mouth, no real action.
  I don't give this issue one moments thought during a typical day so it's not like I dwell upon it like....uuuhhhh...some do. Come up with something better instead of complaining about it. Right now, animal testing has worked far more often that it hasn't as far as helping human medical issues. You still haven't looked up the genetic information I see. Typical.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- failed... what part of human testing follows animal testing do you not understand... I know first hand how the human testing goes (yes, first hand, I am a human guinnea pig so I have more ground to stand on than a philosopher like yourself) and second hand how animal testing goes (second hand as in I have spoken to people personaly involved with animal testing facilities rather than 50th hand by hearing propaganda from ARAs who have never seen a research facility and have degrees in "political science" rather than any actual science.) computer modeling leads to animal testing leads to human testing leads to approval... but guess what... just because drugX worked savely on dick, does not mean it will work safely on jane so by your reasoning human testing should not be done either because you do not KNOW it will work the same on all humans
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Yup Tap...it wouldda been a neat feat for the wright brothers to blast off into space right from the drawing board too. That's not how progress happens though, which is where I believe Failed is missing the point. Baby steps. Leaping off a building often doesn't work the first time out either. :)
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
- maybe he should try it. I would wager he respects Al Gore as a "fellow scientist"
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Scubabob, when did I once mention PETA. They oppose animal experiments because they harm animals. I oppose animal experiments because they harm humans and animals to boot.
  ...
  If the [W]right brothers used sparrows or any other bird as a model for human flight we would not have aviation today. Happily, not all scientists follow an animal model when it is inappropriate to do so.
  ...
  @TAPrice: I was formerly an engineer contractor for mega pharmaceutical developers. I was also involved in health insurance policy implementation. I have even more experience in other areas that makes me better qualified to speak of how the industry works than those who ingest the experimental medications for my former employers.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- actualy the wright brothers did use a bird to design their plane... that is what gave them the edge over the french guy. they called their discovery "wing warping" what was that? a detail applied to both birds and machines!?!?!? do you really thing a mechanical device has more in common with an animal than a human? just because you were a beaurocrat at one of those companies does not mean you understand biochemistry... I excelled in my last job airport security and the managers there couldn't find a bazooka on a midget.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 18th, 2009
- Failed...you don't have to mention PETA in this thread. You have in other threads. Why? Did you suddenly change your stance? Would you like me to post those here for others to peruse or to jog your memory?
  I do have to credit you with not being a twerp such as Discipline or Theby though. You're not flying off the handle with insults and that lends a little to your credibility. You could make money teaching animal rights activists civility and media respectability.
  Personally I'd wear a PETA skin over fur anyday. Waste not want not.
  Looked up that genetic info yet?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 19th, 2009
- @Scubabob: what genetic info are you talking about? AIDS research has been a humbling experience for "medical" researchers who advocate the animal model. In vitro, clinical research, and epidemiology provided the advancements for understanding and treating AIDS. We have more in common with chimpanzees than any other animal, yet chips do not get AIDS. Only a single amino acid difference causes human diseases like sickle cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis. Only humans suffer from these diseases, but I am sure that you and TA will come up with great explanations of why we should (1) try to inflict animals with a disease that they do not get and (2) assume that if we find a remedy for the disease that man made in animals that that will cure humans.
  ...
  @TAPrice: Wing warping consists of a system of pulleys and cables to twist the trailing edges of the wings in opposite directions. Was it a pigeon, humming bird, kite or sparrow that provided the Wright brothers inspiration for wing warping?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Scubabob, since you have the utmost faith that chimp medicine is human medicine, then you should not fear contracting AIDS if you have unprotected sex with 100 male and female prostitutes that also share needles when they abuse drugs (epidemiology provided evidence of how HIV spreads and what populations are at greatest risk, not animal studies). If chimpanzees don't get AIDS, even when being injected with a viral load that is much larger than a human would come in contact with when having sex or sharing a needle with an infected partner, that means that you will not get it either. So much for genetic similarities.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- humming bird... the wright brothers had eyes that operated fast as our high modern high speed cameras so they were able to watch the minute changes in wing formation on a humming bird. it was something large enough to soar. the pullies and cables were their technique on how to duplicate the wing warping of birds. you really are an executive aren't you.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 20th, 2009
- Ok, TAPrice, I give up. The Wright brothers would have never built an airplane if humming birds did not exist. Please cite a source in support of this assertion. I suppose NASA would have never put a man on the moon if that animal that frequently flies to the moon did not exist either.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- thank you for revealing your qualifications earlier...had you not marked yourself as an executive I would have attributed you intelligence to liberalism lowering my opinion of them even further, but since I know you were/are an executive it makes sence to me without adjusting anything. you better pray I am wrong... not about animal testing but about what the future holds for your kind. goodbye.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 20th, 2009
- I am not sure what you are writing about. Could you put forth you message a little more clearly?
  ...
  I never said that I was an executive. I said that I was an engineer. Not all engineers are executives. I have many problems with the power structure of most businesses. I am a working-class person who happens to be a bookworm too.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Lol! What a great debate!
  I see one guy is obsessed with PETA so much he completely lost the plot of the whole debate, whilst the other got crushed by a tiny humming bird. Brilliant and very educational debate, failed_stoic ! Case won again ;)
  - Report
  by Discipline on April 20th, 2009
- and an observer failed to see that I got bored with arguing with incompetence. along with stoic failed to see that "humming bird" was sarcastic even with me pointing out that the bird that inspired the wright brothers SOARED. humming birds do not soar. I did not think such stupidity could be held by an observer as well as the preacher.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 20th, 2009
- now that we are way off subject....
  the wright brother invented the three axis control which made pilots able to steer a plane and keep equilibrium. this kept it in air. other fixed wing crafts allready had been made just never could stay in air
  now then if testing was not done on something human or animal we would not have the medicane and avancments we have now.
  as far as peta goes the have not done anything good for anyone or any animal. most of what comes from them is urban tales and harm.
  - Report
  by wookieblu on April 21st, 2009
- also lenoardo da vinci made many drawings of flying machines one lead to the helicopter another to hang gliders. based on his study of flights of birds. this influnce those who came after him. oh that would include the wright brothers
  - Report
  by wookieblu on April 21st, 2009
- Sure, and I guess we would not have submarines if whales did not exist. What animal provided the inspiration for the invention of the train or car?
  ...
  Wookieblu, I only ask that people who have confidence in the animal model, like yourself, be the first humans to undergo the experimental medicine or surgery. People who oppose the animal model should not be subject to such risks.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 21st, 2009
- On what animal did scientists rely when they were drafting blueprints for nuclear power plants? Did engineers study an elephant heart when designing the steam engine? Did they observe how snakes move when inventing the wheel?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 21st, 2009
- wookieblu, what animal flies like a helicopter? I suppose that next you will say that rope would have never been invented if snakes did not exist.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 21st, 2009
- the pen and pencil have nothing on common because one uses a liquid and the other uses a solid. ane because you missed it the last time I got sarcastic I will tell you that that statment about the pen and pencil is a sarcastic rip on you. you are not an engineer, you are a repair man. someone showed you what parts go where but you couldn't understand how they truely work if your life depended on it.
  I am one of the first humans who get tested on after animal testing... I only ask that those opposed to animal testing like yourself should go before me because the alternative is human testing first.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 21st, 2009
- if testing was to be done on something i needed help with i would be first in line. lots of things we use were based on watching how an animal works or its use of tools. i have spent time in the studies of animal behavior and i find some smarter then some humans.
  - Report
  by wookieblu on April 21st, 2009
- experiments must be done with a control otherwise you can't know if the drug killed him or the disease killed him. I see dumb people too
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 21st, 2009
- agree
  - Report
  by wookieblu on April 21st, 2009
- unless people volunteer to have a drug tested on them when it does not treat a disease they have you have no control... I do that but only after the drugs have passed teh animal testing phase and at much lower dose/kg than given in the animal testing phase. I would not volunteer without such preliminary findings... there are still risks, but they are far less than they would be without such testing.
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on April 21st, 2009
- DES, Ticlid, Rexar, Celebrex, Zimeldine, Enbrel, Zafirlukast, Zimeldine, Enbrel, Chloramphenicol, Fialuridine, Isuprel, Flovent, Methysergide, Suprofen, Surgam, Selacryn, Perhexiline, Domperidone ... represent a minute fraction of total medications that have something in common. Can you guess what it is?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on May 7th, 2009
- TAPriceCTR, I hate to break the news to you but your beloved employers might not care about your well-being as much as you'd like to believe. The animal experiments only function is to give people like you the confidence to be the first humans to take an experimental medication. Animal experiments are the tarot cards for the drug industries. When people like you start to awaken to the idea that tarot cards are predictive, the industry will be forced to employ methods that are predictive of human toxicity (e.g., in vitro analysis with human tissue, genotoxicity with human DNA, human bio-chemical structure analysis ... ).
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on May 7th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
52 comments | Post one | Permalink
by jas on April 10th, 2009
it should be tested on humans. This will cause them to be more accurate. Or test it on human tissue, cells, organs etc
Comments
- We already test it on humans when you consider that the pre-clinical animal experiments are worthless. In vitro testing (and using other scientific methods) with human tissue would, however, reduce the risks posed to the first people who take the medication.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by veriria on May 22nd, 2008
Well the problem as I see it is that other animals are not equal to humans. Humans could volunteer for money to become "testers" for companies. Or refuse.

Animals can't say "ZOMG I DON'T LIKE THIS! You guys are crazy - GET ME OUT OF HERE!" and don't have a choice.

However there are some benefits. I could understand testing cures for cancer or other diseases...I don't understand testing lotions and shampoos and the like on animals, though.
Comments
- humans volunteer because the animal testing stage has mitigated the most serious risk. I am one such human guinnea pig
  - Report
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on March 27th, 2009
- The DNA pioneer and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling stated, "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
  ...
  Animal experimenters for cancer research bank on the fact that most people do not know that the roughly 200 forms of human cancer are uniquely human. Fear and ignorance are the raw materials of the trade.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on May 7th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Raaaaaa on April 17th, 2009
What most people are too ignorant to realise is that almost all animal testing is done for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And only a small percentage is done for human 'gain'. What good does testing on non-human do when we are not the same species and have completely differnt responses to different thing. It is unnecessary, worthless and barbaric practice.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
You are asking the wrong question. The question should not be "Do animal rights activists believe that animals are more important than humans?"; the real question is "Should you go to a veterinarian or a medical doctor when you are sick?" Why does it make more sense for a human to go to a medical doctor. Why would a farmer who has sick cows not call a veterinarian who specializes in dogs and cats?
Comments
- Great points!
  - Report
  by Discipline on April 17th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Yhtomitzlots on April 10th, 2009
I will always believe that using animals for this type of testing is wrong. There are plenty of "us" humans that for a fee, would avail themselves to be tested instead of an animal.
Comments
- Whoa, glad I'm not poor.
  - Report
  by Mosexy on April 10th, 2009
- Yes, and all of us tax-payers will end up paying for the medical bills that the poor people incur from the experimental drugs. I imagine that if someone is so poor that they will agree to take experimental medications, then they do not have private health insurance.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Yarnlady is happy every day on May 21st, 2008
I am not a gung-ho animal rights advocate, but I draw the line on causing undue harm to animals so women can have a new cosmetic product. When I was growing up, make up was only for harlots, now it has become socially unacceptable to not wear make up. It's just plain crazy.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by deltabtry on May 16th, 2008
I think the Nazi's already tried that and we lost/wounded 646,000 soldiers trying to rectify that. Ask Peta if we want to go down this path again. With 6,602,224,175 souls to feed on this planet I think we are at a point of no return...carry on.
Comments
- no, that's not what WWII was about, we didn't even find out about that until after the war was over.
  ..
  bonus points if you can tell me what the purpose of the Nazi experiments was
  - Report
  by purplecows on May 16th, 2008
- but the liberation in the process was, I just stated it in this form for effect. I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make. The human experiements in short was basically trying to design the super soldier.
  - Report
  by deltabtry on May 16th, 2008
- Why do people assume that if we do not test on animals that we must test on humans? Do you also think that if we don't slaughter cows then we must slaughter humans?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 16th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Theby on April 11th, 2009
In many cases the "experiments" are ones that could be conducted on humans without causing any harm. One such case at the University of California was of a very young baby macaque monkey who was taken away from his mother at birth, his eyelids were sewn shut without the benefit of surgical anaesthesia andhe was completely isolated. He clung onto a rubber bollard that was in his cage. In addition to this he was fitted with a crude "helmet" which emitted loud and high screeching 24 hours a day. Con'd
Comments
- Fortunately for this monkey, a group called the "Animal Liberation Front" liberated him, along with hundred's of other animals. He was taken to a facility where he was cared for and his eyelids were unsutured for the first time so he could see. His behaviour included uncontrollable spasms of his body and neurotic hand chewing. After some time this abated and he was removed to a wildlife sanctuary in Mexico. Here he was adopted by an elderly female macaque and today lives a happy and relatively free life. YES, USE HUMANS!
  - Report
  by Theby on April 11th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Mosexy on April 10th, 2009
Hard-core animal rights people are the biggest hypocrites going. What percentage of them actually refuse life saving treatment because it was tested on animals? Well, if the number two broad at PETA can't do it, I'm guessing that percentage is somewhere around ZERO.

I'm not completely heartless and do see their point when it comes to cosmetic products, but as for medical therapies, they should just shut the hell up.

NO CONVICTION = NO MORAL ISSUE.
Comments
- I think when push comes to shove, all people want to live. You're right, I don't believe they would refuse treatment based on the fact it was previously tested on an animal. Why aren't they lining up volunteering to take an animals place at the lab for a cancer cure?
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- Exactly, people want to live. And animal rights people have no right to compromise another persons access to treatment when they are unwilling to make sacrifices themselves.
  - Report
  by Mosexy on April 12th, 2009
- I don't believe they can think that far enough ahead to make the connection between the two. It seems they're part of the "instant gratification" crowd. At least that's how they are beginning to appear to me. Forget debating them. I've tried. All you get are insults and no debate. Ask a question and they dance around it then come out with the yelling. Yelling makes them right? Yelling makes them look like kids. Have a look at this thread http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/6082958 and you'll see what I mean.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- I'm beginning to believe labs SHOULD grab the PETA membership list and use it to full advantage. Even I don't like where I'm heading with that. But it's an option and they can get their headlines.
  - Report
  by scubabob on April 12th, 2009
- Scubabob, I think that people like you, who support the animal model, should be the first people to test out a new medical drug or procedure after it has passed animal protocols. Why should PETA members, most of whom are outraged about the deaths and injuries that the animal model inflicts on humans and animals, be the first humans in the experiments?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- I think it's cause maybe, just maybe he's saying: Peta sucks!
  - Report
  by Mosexy on April 20th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Twisted Taco on April 10th, 2009
Yes, we should experiment on humans. Let's start with the Christians
Comments
- Yes, and the pain they experience will be nothing compared to what they will experience in hell. +6
  - Report
  by Theby on April 10th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by tony b on March 31st, 2009
as lond as we eat them afterward
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by purplecows on May 16th, 2008
no, it doesn't become safer, it's just that we can detect dangerous ones and not pursue them -- or do you know something i don't about what happens after a test result says "bad" ?

bonus points if you can tell me how many products per year are tested and rejected because they cause problems with the animal
Comments
- I do know that there are many medication that harm animals but heal people. Digitalis, Streptomycin, Tacromilus, Corticosteroids, Penicillin, Prilosec, Isoniazid, Lasix, Fluoride ... are some examples of this group. I often wonder how many medications that could have healed people never passed FDA trials because we make the stupid assumption that veterinary medicine is the same as human medicine.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on May 7th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by scubabob on April 18th, 2009
It's safer if the medical product is tested on a species that shares a similar genetic makeup, sure. As to the second part of your question, I'd like to see a PETA member be first in line at the research facility. I suspect it won't happen though.
Comments
- I think that the people who believe that animal experiments are good predictors of how humans will react to a novel area of medicine should be the first humans to undergo ingesting the medicine or proving that the surgery is safe. It would be even better if the people who beg for grants to do animal experiments prove their confidence in the animal model by being the first humans to test the safety of a new area of medicine once the animal protocols are passed. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to encourage the people who make fortunes from animal experiments to show everyone else that they believe strongly in their work? Why should PETA members assume this role?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Why should PETA members be the first humans to undergo an experimental treatment. Shouldn't people like you, who believe the animal model does not cause undue death and injury to humans, be the first humans in an experimental medical drug, or procedure study? Why would it make sense to experiment on people who oppose the animal model? You might get people who oppose the animal model to volunteer if (1) they are searching for a treatment and (2) pre-clinical studies that are predictive of a human biological reaction to a treatment are used (animal models are not predictive).
  ...
  Between 1976 and 1985 the FDA approved 209 new compounds in the U.S. after extensive animal testing. Nine drugs of the 200 were "orphaned" (not marketed because they were not likely to be profitable). The FDA conducted post-marketing surveillance on 198 of the remaining 200. Of these 198 drugs 102, over half, were withdrawn from the market or relabeled because of severe unpredicted side effects....
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- Looks like flipping a coin would have predicted which drugs would have severe side effects in humans better than the animal protocols.
  Source: GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Hrududu on April 17th, 2009
I'm pregnant, and frankly I am glad that medications I need to take have been tested on animals before they are given to me. My unborn child's life is more important to me than the life of a rat fetus.
Comments
- Thalidomide was left on the market for way longer than it should have been. Tens of thousands of babies were born with flippers for limbs or no limbs at all. However, thalidomide does not cause birth defects, or teratogenesis, in rats. People tended to ignore the thousands of congenital birth defects that were occurring in humans because the drug did not induce phocomelia (limb deformations) in rats. For the sake of your child, please consult an obstetrician that draws information from a source that is a bit more appropriate for babies than rat data!
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- For the sake of your unborn child, please go to an obstetrician that does not rely on rat data! Thalidomide caused tens of thousands of babies to be born with limb deformities. The only reason why it was prescribed for so long is because the drug did not cause congenital defects in rats.
  ...
  I urge you to use something more appropriate than rat data to ensure that your child lives a healthy life.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- I have a great OB. I'm just saying that I am glad that drug manufacturers study all drugs closely, and that includes animal testing. It's not always fool proof but it can give us very useful information.
  - Report
  by Hrududu on April 18th, 2009
- And btw, whoever downgraded me for having an opinion, that is pretty fucking lame. Should I value a rat fetus more than my own child? I don't think so. We are all entitled to an opinion. Downgrading is for abusive or irrelevant answers, not for asshole ammunition.
  - Report
  by Hrududu on April 18th, 2009
- I am not downgrading you for having your opinion. I am downgrading you for spreading the false information that animal experiments help babies when they actually harm babies. I love children too much to see this harmful assumption being spread without truly understanding the matter.
  ...
  For example, twenty years ago Dr. Schmid stated: More than eight hundred chemicals have been defined as teratogens (agents that cause birth defects) in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately twenty have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time. Source: Trends in Pharmacological Science, Vol.8, 1987, p.133.
  ...
  The lives of the next generation of humans are much to important to subject them to veterinary medical care when they deserve human medical care.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- It IS my opinion, and it's not abusive or irrelevant. You downgraded it because you don't like my opinion.
  
  My husband is a quantitative geneticist. He holds a PhD. We have discussed this topic at length and in depth. I hold his knowledge and opinions on this subject in very high esteem. There IS VALUE to animal testing. Nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise, because I believe you are wrong.
  
  Notice I didn't downgrade you for having an opinion, however. Abusing the point system here doesn't make you right. It makes you an asshole.
  - Report
  by Hrududu on April 18th, 2009
- Of course he would say there is value to animal testing. Do you think that he would have a job if his public opinion were otherwise? After all, how can his baby grow up healthy without a place to live or food. I am sure that his employer gives him money for that.
  ...
  Do you think that a swine farmer would say that pork is high in cholesterol? Do you think that a coal miner would state that solar power is a much better way to generate electricity?
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 18th, 2009
- Give me a break. He doesn't work for the pharmacuetical industry. Do you even know what a quantitative geneticist is? Look it up in the dictionary, stupid. You're an asshole and you're dumb on top of it. I'm through talking to you.
  - Report
  by Hrududu on April 18th, 2009
- If your husband studies animal genetics, then I am sure that he will tell everyone how nobody would be alive today without animal experiments. However, if he studies the human genome, he is probably furious at the people who claim that studying animals, not only doesn't kill people through misleading data, but actually saves human lives. Many people who study real medicine and are on the right path when it comes to searching for causes of, and solutions to, human diseases are furious that con artists can sap funds out of the medical research pool by boldly claiming that understanding rat diseases and genetics will help us understand the nuances of human disease and genetics.
  ...
  Animal experiments might help your baby because his parents can afford baby wipes, diapers, good food, and housing in an area with low air pollution. But, for most children, animal experiments are bad news. They have been known to cause congenital birth defects, death, and iatrogenic injury when ...
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
- the assumption is made that people are genetically and medically equivalent to rats.
  - Report
  by failed_stoic on April 20th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
10 comments | Post one | Permalink
by purplecows on May 7th, 2009
It's never possible for "those other people" (you know, the ones who disagree with me) to see the things that are obvious to me. Must be something genetically wrong with their brains, or the way they were raised.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on May 15th, 2009
Since science has been evloving for centuries methods need to be considered that eliminates the need for animal cruelty on any level. We are so far away from this kind of consciousness that the whole planet is suffering far worse than any disease that needs to be cured. Most of the disease we have are due to eating, and abusing animals. Where do you think cancer came from in the first place? Not, certainly from a vegetarian diet.
Comments
- wait, are you stating that cancer came from eating animals?
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on July 13th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by italiagirl on July 4th, 2008
wow thas pretty low there guys.
Comments
- anndddddd what do you mean by that?
  - Report
  by Wannabe Superhero on August 15th, 2008
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink

Question

Is it even possible for the animal rights people to see that when we test a product on an animal, its safer? what should scientists experiment on? humans?

Answers. 26 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!