View Full Version : PETA/Animal Testing
Just wondering what peoples views are on PETA and their various campaigns?
I am against animal cruelty and in recent years even thought of turning vegan to support the cause but after thinking it through and actually researching PETA I felt humiliated by some of the things I was willing to support.
Recently I have been sent various emails about medical research using mice and how PETA want to stop this. This offends me something serious because I am a diabetic and like to think that one day their may be a cure for it but without animal testing I don't see what they'd test on?
essexbird
23-Apr-10, 17:30
i'm against all animal testing, there is just no need in this day and age, take a look at the BUAV website.
i'm against all animal testing, there is just no need in this day and age, take a look at the BUAV website.
So what about all the wonderful life saving drugs used in veterinary medicine then? If a horse has an infection shouldn't it have antibiotics or do we just let it slowly die? If a dog is in pain do we give it an analgesic or let it suffer?
How are we going to develop drugs to save the lives and prevent suffering in animals if we can't test them on animals?
annthracks
23-Apr-10, 18:56
So what about all the wonderful life saving drugs used in veterinary medicine then? If a horse has an infection shouldn't it have antibiotics or do we just let it slowly die? If a dog is in pain do we give it an analgesic or let it suffer?
How are we going to develop drugs to save the lives and prevent suffering in animals if we can't test them on animals?
I bought a shampoo labelled as "Not tested on animals" and when I washed my rabbit it's eyes went red and weepy. If only they'd tested it first...
Hogfather
23-Apr-10, 18:56
...Recently I have been sent various emails about medical research using mice and how PETA want to stop this.....
Did PETA tell you how they are planning to try and stop this? AFAIK it is a legal requirement, imposed by Govt, that drugs for use on folk are first tested on animals. Certainly it's not infallible (thalidomide?) but it is supposed to be the best/most safe/reliable method currently available. I know that the license requirements for medical research using animals are quite rigorous, and require that the use of animals is minimised as far as possible (mate is an animal tech at a Uni down south) - maybe there is room for further reduction, I'd like to hope so, but I'm not against animal testing for medical reasons per se, and as fred says, what about veterinary applications? Think PETA have tendencies to be a bunch of loons ;)
The Exec VP of PETA, uses Insulin developed through animal testing. In what has to be the very definition of hypocrisy she said.
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
If you read their literature, PETA are against keeping animals as pets also.
So what about all the wonderful life saving drugs used in veterinary medicine then? If a horse has an infection shouldn't it have antibiotics or do we just let it slowly die? If a dog is in pain do we give it an analgesic or let it suffer?
How are we going to develop drugs to save the lives and prevent suffering in animals if we can't test them on animals?
You mean like penicillin, which if it had been tested on animals would never have been granted a licence for human use.
Alternatives do exist:
http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
I predict a very long thread!
Below are some of the mistakes of Vivisection
1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]
3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]
4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.[7][8][9]
5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.
6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.
7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.
8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.
9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development.[10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.
file:///E:/DOCUME%7E1/KEVINL%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif
Used with kind permission
of The Covance Campaign (http://www.animaltestingkills.com/)
10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.
11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]
12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]
13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.
14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.
15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.
16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.
17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.
18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.
20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.
21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]
22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.
23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]
24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.
25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.
26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26]
27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]
28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species'.[29][30]
29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]
30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]
31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals.[35] 32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]
33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]
34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.[40][41]
35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.[42][43][44]
36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently.[45][46]
37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.
38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.
39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.
40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.[47]
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html
Hogfather
23-Apr-10, 19:17
But 'they' don't just do animal trials and then release a drug on the unsuspecting public! The animal trials tend to weed out the drugs that are going to kill the human volunteers who line up (and are paid) for human drug trials, or clinical trials on volunteers who are going to die without any kind of treatment. Again, it's not infallible (I seem to recall a human trial fairly recently where folk died/were very ill, but am too senile to remember the details and too apathetic to google) - but I wouldn't volunteer to be a human guinea-pig without animal trials having been carried out first. Cell culture and computer modelling can only take you so far. Let's hear PETA's real alternative, and then let them volunteer for the first lot of tests on a drug passed by their methods......
redeyedtreefrog
23-Apr-10, 19:26
Without animal testing we lose about 90% of medical research, with not much chance of curing cancer any time soon.
Also, PETA's tax forms record a payment of several thousad dollars to the father of a man who petrol-bombed a research facility.
J C Denton
23-Apr-10, 23:13
Below are some of the mistakes of Vivisection
I take it you didn't have room to mention the thousands of life-saving drugs and treatments in use that have been tested on animals?
A few years back, I worked for a pharmaceutical company. We had people break into our offices, make bomb threats, shouting abuse and physically harassing people going to and leaving work, photographing car number plates, and firebombing the car of the an ex-employees wife. As far as I'm concerned, active members of the animal rights organisations that I've come into contact with are little short of terrorists and beneath contempt.
Hogfather is spot on - if animal rights activists are so dead set against animal testing, they should offer themselves up as human guinea pigs. Strange that they don't seem too keen.
You mean like penicillin, which if it had been tested on animals would never have been granted a licence for human use.
I have a bottle of penicillin in my fridge now, I always keep some in case one of my animals need it. I know it does work on animals from experience.
So penicillin was tested on humans then used to save animals?
It's not just drugs that are tested on animals, plastics are too. Last week I tested my bumper on Bambi!
I have a bottle of penicillin in my fridge now, I always keep some in case one of my animals need it. I know it does work on animals from experience.
So penicillin was tested on humans then used to save animals?
Don't know about that but have a look at following:
Toxicity of Penicillin to Guinea Pigs
P. STUART & G. SLAVIN
Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, Surrey. Oct. 17.
It has been reportet that guinea pigs dosed with penicillin were more susceptible to experimental tuberculosis than were undosed controls. It has since been shown that penicillin per se is toxic to guinea pigs, and that this accounted for the earlier deaths in groups treated with penicillin2.
lhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v167/n4243/abs/167319b0.html
It's not just drugs that are tested on animals, plastics are too. Last week I tested my bumper on Bambi!
Bored in your little warehouse tonight are we Joe?, not to worry Ant & Dec are on tomorrow
Don't know about that but have a look at following:
But how are we to develop drugs to alleviate pain and suffering in animals if we don't test them on animals?
luskentyre
23-Apr-10, 23:43
It just strikes me as arrogance to think we have the right to treat animals as disposable test subjects to trial therapies/reatments, primarily for human use. As the "dominant" species, we may be superior in some ways (definitely not in others) but that dominance brings with it a duty of care, not the right to do what we like to lesser species for our benefit.
With all the facilities at our disposal now (tissue cultures, computer modelling and yes, knowledge gained from existing experiments etc.) is it really necessary to carry out destructive testing on wildly differing species? Don't we know what would be detrimental to human health before we carry out human testing?
I don't see this as a scientific argument at all - it's a moral one. Yes, animal testing probably can be beneficial and probably can advance medical science - but that doesn't mean it's right. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it. If we choose to selfishly transplant our problems onto another species, then what are we losing in terms of our compassion and our "humanity"?
Bored in your little warehouse tonight are we Joe?, not to worry Ant & Dec are on tomorrow
I am actually. I should be in bed sleeping because I expected to be working tomorrow, I even set my clock for 4.30am, then got a call telling me I could have the day off. :D
J C Denton
23-Apr-10, 23:47
Don't know about that but have a look at following:
Toxicity of Penicillin to Guinea Pigs
P. STUART & G. SLAVIN
Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, Surrey. Oct. 17.
It has been reportet that guinea pigs dosed with penicillin were more susceptible to experimental tuberculosis than were undosed controls. It has since been shown that penicillin per se is toxic to guinea pigs, and that this accounted for the earlier deaths in groups treated with penicillin2.
lhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v167/n4243/abs/167319b0.html
Oh dear....
The Seattle Post Intelligencer recently ran an excellent series of articles debunking a lot of animal rights myths about medical research. That didn’t stop one eighth grader at a local school from writing in to claim that penicillin kills guinea pigs. This claim is straight off of fact sheets (they should call them false sheets) by PETA and other groups. In a fact sheet titled “Drug Testing: Pain, Not Gain,” PETA claims that:
Penicillin would not be in use today if it had been tested on guinea pigs–common laboratory subjects–because penicillin kills guinea pigs.
PETA doesn’t bother to cite the source of this claim (surprise), but it is actually based on a rather bizarre misreading of a study that examined the effects of prolonged exposure to very large doses of penicillin which does indeed tend to produce toxicity and death. Similar problems, however, occur with human beings who are exposed to very large doses of penicillin for long periods of time, and for much the same reason — in both the guinea pigs and human beings, the prolonged exposure to penicillin kills micro-organisms in the gut which creates a whole host of other problems.
Leave it to the animal rights activists to claim that studies showing extremely high doses of penicillin administered for long periods of time can produce toxicity in guinea pigs means “penicillin kills guinea pigs.” They might as well say that if penicillin had been tested in human beings it never would have been approved because “penicillin harms human beings.”
But the interesting thing, it turns out, is that penicillin was largely ignored for many decades after its initial discovery because it didn’t appear to have any beneficial effect in human beings. Only tests done in the first half of the century with mice finally convinced medical researchers that penicillin might have some broad benefits worth exploring.
Dr. Robert Speth wrote a letter-to-the-editor outlining of the Seattle Post Intelligencer outlining the strange winding path that penicillin took and the crucial role of animal tests, which he has graciously permitted me to reprint:
Animals: Penicillin’s Success Came From Tests on Rats
By Robert Speth
The animal rights movement has made schoolchildren primary targets of their
anti-research propaganda. The letter (May 14) from Victoria Wilkins, an
eighth-grader at Eckstein Middle School, is an example of how the animal
rights movement is victimizing children. The letter, which no doubt she took
great pains to write, is founded in the litany of inaccurate information used
by the animal rights movement to disparage animal research.
While each of the arguments she poses against animal research can be
rebutted, her comment regarding penicillin is so inaccurate as to require
immediate correction.
When penicillin was discovered in the 1870s, it was tested on humans. Its
effects were so erratic and unpredictable that it was ignored as a drug until
1940 when Sir Howard Florey tested it on eight mice injected with a lethal
dose of bacteria. Only the mice that got penicillin lived. The experiment was
so compelling that it quickly led to the use of penicillin in World War II,
saving thousands of soldiers’ lives.
Florey used mice because he had so little penicillin he could not test it on
humans. Indeed, attempts to use penicillin in humans after Florey’s discovery
were still inconclusive. But, because the results in mice were so convincing,
Florey and his chemist purified their crude penicillin extract to obtain a
grade that worked reliably in humans.
When animal rights activists tell children that penicillin kills guinea pigs
and, therefore, “If we had relied on animal research we would not have
penicillin” they are lying to our children.
That is why teachers must be extremely vigilant with regard to the materials
distributed by animal rights groups for their curriculum. Children’s
schooling should not be a means for the animal rights movement to spread its
false propaganda.
Dr Speth is Professor of Pharmacology and Neuroscience at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman WA. He is also a charter member and Past-President of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics, a Board Member of the National Animal Interest Alliance, an emeritus board member of the Washington Association for Biomedical Research, and a recipient of the Lewis J. Kettel award from Incurably Ill For Animal Research.
J C Denton
23-Apr-10, 23:52
And from the Grauniad:
If you read some of the anti-vivisection websites, you could easily believe that there had been no benefits from animal research. Even the discovery of penicillin, tested on mice, which has indisputably saved millions of lives, is dismissed. Why? Because, it is claimed, penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs and rabbits and it was luck that made Oxford chemists Chain and Florey pick mice for their experiments. Should it negate the fact that without mice, a drug of enormous benefit to both humans and animals might never have been developed?
Edit I predict a very long thread!
It'll make a change from those bloody global warming/climate change threads that go on forever. :roll:
But how are we to develop drugs to alleviate pain and suffering in animals if we don't test them on animals?
Cell & tissue culture and herbal remedies coupled with computer modelling and historical tests on animals should mean that we have a surplus of information to help with the introduction of new drugs.
Also do we need any more hair shampoos/cosmetics/perfume on shp shelves?
As for treating various cancer, we are still a long way off finding a cure for humans.
I forget actual percentage but a large number of cancers can be avoided by lifestyle changes.
Paradoxically, it is oftened claimed that "more people maka living out of canver than actually die from it
http://www.speakwell.com/well/2002_summer/printVersion.shtml
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 00:05
I forget actual percentage but a large number of cancers can be avoided by lifestyle changes.
What's your evidence for that statement?
Cell & tissue culture and herbal remedies coupled with computer modelling and historical tests on animals should mean that we have a surplus of information to help with the introduction of new drugs.
Well yes, computers and maths and loads of practical knowledge goes into designing and building an aeroplane but someone has to be the first to fly it, someone has to find out if the theory works in practice, someone has to be a test pilot before a plane can be used to carry loads of passengers.
After you've used your computer models and everything to develop a new drug to alleviate pain and suffering in animals some animal has to be the first to take it don't they?
A few years back, I worked for a pharmaceutical company. We had people break into our offices, make bomb threats, shouting abuse and physically harassing people going to and leaving work, photographing car number plates, and firebombing the car of the an ex-employees wife. As far as I'm concerned, active members of the animal rights organisations that I've come into contact with are little short of terrorists and beneath contempt.
Hogfather is spot on - if animal rights activists are so dead set against animal testing, they should offer themselves up as human guinea pigs. Strange that they don't seem too keen.
(A) I trust that you reported all these incidents to the police, and we can read all about what actually happened when you post links of these attacks, arrests and court cases.
If you advise me of the name and location of this lab i will be able to show Org members what went on there. You state that you no longer work there so there, should be no ID problems and I promise you anonimty
(B) by the same token, if you want to wear a new aftershave, use a new shampoo, use a new face cream etc YOU be the test species, why should we be so cowardly as expect another sentient animal, that would not normally come into contact with these substances, test chemicals that we use for purely for vanity
What's your evidence for that statement?
A lot info at:http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22preventing+cancer+through+lifestyle%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
You tell them Anfield m8 [lol].
I am really made up with the depth of your knowledge on this PETA thing and drug testing, about time someone told these rednecks some of the facts about it all :lol:
Keep up the good work, I am behind you all the way m8 :cool:
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 00:38
(A) I trust that you reported all these incidents to the police, and we can read all about what actually happened when you post links of these attacks, arrests and court cases.
If you advise me of the name and location of this lab i will be able to show Org members what went on there. You state that you no longer work there so there, should be no ID problems and I promise you anonimty
I worked for Roche Diagnostics, which wasn't a research lab. As it happens, the police were involved on a number of occasions and arrests were made, I've already posted details of what happened. Strange as it may seem I never bothered looking up details of court cases and bookmarking them at the time. Care to explain what I, working in the finance department, did to warrant physical and verbal threats?
(B) by the same token, if you want to wear a new aftershave, use a new shampoo, use a new face cream etc YOU be the test species, why should we be so cowardly as expect another sentient animal, that would not normally come into contact with these substances, test chemicals that we use for purely for vanity
If you commit yourself to saying that you'd gladly receive a medicine previously untested on either animals or humans (be it injected, oral, or otherwise administered), I'll happily offer to test a new shampoo.
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 00:52
A lot info at:http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22preventing+cancer+through+lifestyle%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
All you've done is a search on "preventing cancer through lifestyle", which only returned 6 results. Did you actually read any of the results?
The first is a two page blog post without any citation of sources or evidence.
The second is from the American Association for Cancer Research, and doesn't actually mention any research into lifestyle change whatsoever. All they say is that they aim to prevent cancer through lifestyle change. Very laudable but no evidence is presented for it.
The third is an abstract from "Cancer Prevention II". I'll concede that there MAY be some serious evidence contained within the pages of this tome, but I'm not (and I'll wager you haven't) paying $25 to find out.
The fourth is merely a comment in a Washington Post article: Other experts hailed the decline but said it resulted primarily from preventing cancer through lifestyle changes such as quitting smoking and from more aggressive screening. Wow. Quitting smoking might reduce your risk of cancer. I never knew that.
I'll confess that I've not read the fifth link as the PDF was taking so long to load on my connection that I was losing the will to live. Given the so called "evidence" turned up by the other results, it's fairly safe to assume that I haven't missed much.
The sixth just links to the American Association for Cancer Research.
Anyone can Google a phrase. When you've found some actual research, backed up by a proper study, I'll be happy to listen to you.
luskentyre
24-Apr-10, 01:46
Well yes, computers and maths and loads of practical knowledge goes into designing and building an aeroplane but someone has to be the first to fly it, someone has to find out if the theory works in practice, someone has to be a test pilot before a plane can be used to carry loads of passengers.
After you've used your computer models and everything to develop a new drug to alleviate pain and suffering in animals some animal has to be the first to take it don't they?
Well said Fred - if that plane is to carry human passengers then let humans test it out.
I'm all for animal testing on treatments for animals, but do we really need tests such as the Draize test. For those that don't know:
<i>"The Draize Test is an acute toxicity test devised in 1944 by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toxicologists John H. Draize and Jacob M. Spines. Initially used for testing cosmetics, the procedure involves applying 0.5mL or 0.5g of a test substance to the eye or skin of a restrained, conscious animal, and leaving it for four hours.[1] The animals are observed for up to 14 days, for signs of erythema and edema in the skin test, and redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or blindness in the tested eye. The test subject is commonly an albino rabbit, though other species are used too, including dogs.[2] The animals are killed after testing"</i>
Or the LD50 test:
<i>"In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50 (abbreviation for “Lethal Dose, 50%”), LC50 (Lethal Concentration, 50%) or LCt50 (Lethal Concentration & Time) of a toxic substance or radiation is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. LD50 figures are frequently used as a general indicator of a substance's acute toxicity. The test was created by J.W. Trevan in 1927.[1] It is being phased out in some jurisdictions in favor of tests such as the Fixed Dose Procedure;[2] however the concept, and calculation of the median lethal dose for comparison purposes, is still widely used."</i>
Generally speaking, animals are unlikely to overdose on medication. They're also unlikely to tell you about certain symptoms that humans might find unacceptable e.g. depression, anxiety, paranoia.
As I said before, this isn't a scientific argument, it's a moral one.
We could use orphans to test new drugs on, but we don't. We could use disabled people, but we don't. Surely a civilised society has to have boundaries as to what we consider morally acceptable? I personally believe that it's wrong to subject a living, feeling creature to such destructive tests for our own benefit.
luskentyre
24-Apr-10, 01:53
All you've done is a search on "preventing cancer through lifestyle", which only returned 6 results. Did you actually read any of the results?
The first is a two page blog post without any citation of sources or evidence.
The second is from the American Association for Cancer Research, and doesn't actually mention any research into lifestyle change whatsoever. All they say is that they aim to prevent cancer through lifestyle change. Very laudable but no evidence is presented for it.
The third is an abstract from "Cancer Prevention II". I'll concede that there MAY be some serious evidence contained within the pages of this tome, but I'm not (and I'll wager you haven't) paying $25 to find out.
The fourth is merely a comment in a Washington Post article: Other experts hailed the decline but said it resulted primarily from preventing cancer through lifestyle changes such as quitting smoking and from more aggressive screening. Wow. Quitting smoking might reduce your risk of cancer. I never knew that.
I'll confess that I've not read the fifth link as the PDF was taking so long to load on my connection that I was losing the will to live. Given the so called "evidence" turned up by the other results, it's fairly safe to assume that I haven't missed much.
The sixth just links to the American Association for Cancer Research.
Anyone can Google a phrase. When you've found some actual research, backed up by a proper study, I'll be happy to listen to you.
Well now you're just being obtuse, citing 6 results on searching for an actual phrase. I got 1,260,000 results searching for that term. The fact of the matter is that many human conditions are caused by lifestyle choices e.g. diet, smoking, drinking, drug use, lack of exercise, environmental conditions, technology.
Anyone can Google a phrase. When you've found some actual research, backed up by a proper study, I'll be happy to listen to you.
You seem like an intelligent person so if "Anyone can Google a phrase." do it and then start filtering till you get result As you also used to work in a place where animals were experimented on then surely you would have a better idea than me on what you are really looking for.
If you still get stuck pm me and i will point you in right direction
Well said Fred - if that plane is to carry human passengers then let humans test it out.
And if a drug is going to be used on animals let animals test it out.
Well now you're just being obtuse, citing 6 results on searching for an actual phrase. I got 1,260,000 results searching for that term. The fact of the matter is that many human conditions are caused by lifestyle choices e.g. diet, smoking, drinking, drug use, lack of exercise, environmental conditions, technology.
Anfield posted the link for the results of the search term, it did return 6 results if you clicked on the link in Anfield's post, how is that being obtuse?
To quote someone, I would kill a a bunch of puppies and kitties with my bare hands to save the life of one junkie.
These anti and alternative animal testing things are junk/pseudo science pushing an agenda with spurious conclusions, questionable research methods and a bias going into the research.
Actual legitimate scientists are constantly testing alternatives if one is better than animal testing it will be used.
I think groups like PETA, the ALF etc should be treated as domestic terrorists when they use violence. Another example of the hypocrisy of PETA, they protest animal control and the killing of animals that can't be rehomed yet they themselves have a facility in their head quarters for killing animals.
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 12:11
You seem like an intelligent person so if "Anyone can Google a phrase." do it and then start filtering till you get result
I haven't made an unsubstantiated claim about preventing cancer through lifestyle changes, though. I've asked you to provide evidence to back this claim up but you've so far failed to do so. If you can provide scientific evidence that "a large number of cancers can be avoided" through lifestyle changes then I'll happily stand corrected. If you can't provide it, I'm not going to search for it on your behalf.
Margaret M.
24-Apr-10, 16:37
I haven't made an unsubstantiated claim about preventing cancer through lifestyle changes, though. I've asked you to provide evidence to back this claim up
There is ample research proving that one's diet and exercise regimen play a key role in protection against cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. Dr. T. Colin Campbell, a nutritional biochemist and former dairy farmer, was dispatched by the U.S. government to determine how protein intake could be increased in populations in underdeveloped countries. His goal was to increase their intake of animal protein. However, his studies revealed that the presence of animal protein in the human body turned cancer cells on but once the animal protein was eliminated from the diet, cancer cells were turned off. He went on to complete the biggest study ever done on nutrition, The China Study. If you have not read it, you should.
I spent time earlier this year listening to amazing stories of recovery from folks with kidney cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, etc., many of whom were given no hope by conventional doctors. As a last resort, they embraced a nutritionally dense eating regimen that consisted of whole and plant based foods with no meat or dairy. It simply eliminated their cancers.
Type II diabetes, which is often caused by diet, can be reversed quite easily by adopting a vegan diet.
redeyedtreefrog
24-Apr-10, 16:51
Also do we need any more hair shampoos/cosmetics/perfume on shp shelves?
OK, I agree with you when you say its wrong to test cosmetics on animals, but life-savin drugs is another matter.
...they themselves have a facility in their head quarters for killing animals.
PETA's tax records also show that they bought a massive freezer. A freezer of the size they bought can be used for two things: Meat, which people at PETA don't eat, or bodies.
I'd recommend Penn & Teller's episode of BS on PETA, quite interesting.
Margaret M.
24-Apr-10, 16:57
In 2010, there are more reliable methods than animal testing available. The life of an animal used in testing is beyond sad and the conditions and suffering can be horrendous. And it involves all kinds of animals from tiny mice to intelligent primates that cry out in grief as their partner is wheeled away on a gurney.
We cannot consider ourselves compassionate if we approve of using innocent creatures for this purpose.
PETA, particularly through their undercover investigations, has done so much worldwide to improve animal welfare. There are countless myths about PETA, some of them repeated in this thread -- not worthy of a rebuttal.
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=mice_and_rats_USA_QT&Player=flv
Actually a lot of those PETA undercover things are staged. Also PETA are for total animal liberation (according to their own literature) which means no pets, no food, no animal products, no zoos or nature preserves. Yet they lie to their main source of funding (overzealous pet owners) about a lot of this.
Theres video footage of a lot of 'the myths' about PETA also from high profile people like Ingrid Newkirk.
Its a shame I don't have footage of scientists dieing when university labs are firebombed, still there is footage of PETA people teaching kids how to make firebombs and Molotov cocktails.
EDIT: I'm sorry if this seems cruel also but they're animals, PETA cares more about animals than about people. Over zealous PETA owners don't help either using pets as substitutes for children.
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 18:49
There is ample research proving that one's diet and exercise regimen play a key role in protection against cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases.
There is evidence that a healthy diet may reduce the RISK of cancer. There is no evidence that cancer can be "avoided" through lifestyle changes.
For example, eating a diet high in fibre reduces your risk of getting bowel cancer, but it does not guarantee that you will not contract bowel cancer. Certainly, one can minimise the risk of cancer through diet, exercise, not smoking and so on, but one cannot guarantee to avoid it entirely through these.
There is evidence that a healthy diet may reduce the RISK of cancer. There is no evidence that cancer can be "avoided" through lifestyle changes.
For example, eating a diet high in fibre reduces your risk of getting bowel cancer, but it does not guarantee that you will not contract bowel cancer. Certainly, one can minimise the risk of cancer through diet, exercise, not smoking and so on, but one cannot guarantee to avoid it entirely through these.
Its a losing battle mate, you're dealing with people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology and science when they make these statements. They think crystals, magnets, eastern medicine etc help you.
Hogfather
24-Apr-10, 19:22
OK, I agree with you when you say its wrong to test cosmetics on animals, but life-savin drugs is another matter.
Hopefully you'd struggle to find anyone who'd disagree with the first part!:D
I am interested to know who among the folk who are responding to this thread have ever worked in medical research? I'd like to know what methods available in 2010 are better than animal testing please?
Dunno how much of the AV evidence is staged, but I do know that at the Uni my pal works at, which has a very small animal Dept, there was a demonstration by an animal rights group outside the student union. They had rather nasty pictures of cats with electrodes in their heads which they claimed had been taken by 'their undercover person' at this Uni within the last 12 months ((this was in 2004).
<<Rude word>>
OK, just because one lot were lying their fluffy heads off doesn't mean they all do, but it doesn't make them look good either :roll:
Margaret M.
24-Apr-10, 21:08
I'd like to know what methods available in 2010 are better than animal testing please?
The following article highlights some of the testing alternatives available:
New Cell Tests Beat Animal Tests
Animal tests have come under repeated and well-deserved criticism for failing to predict dangerous effects of drugs and other chemicals. Of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans, only 7 caused cancer in standard animal tests. The cancer-causing effect of chemicals varies so dramatically between species that tests on rats yield different answers from tests on mice for one in every three chemicals tested, according to researchers from Carnegie-Mellon University. Using rodent tests to predict effects in humans is risky at best.
Animal tests routinely miss toxic effects of drugs. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that, of all new drugs that entered the market between 1976 and 1985, 52 percent proved to be more dangerous than animal tests and limited human studies had predicted—so much so that they had to be relabeled with new warnings or pulled from the market.
Late 1996 brought two long-awaited breakthroughs. First, a new study shows that safety tests using human cells are more accurate than animal tests. Second, a new company offers methods for developing new drugs that use no animals at all.
New Medicines without Animal Tests
Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to conduct new drug development and testing using human tissues and sophisticated computer technologies exclusively. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and investigates how drugs affect the actions of these genes or the proteins they make. While some have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues.
Pharmagene personnel came from other large pharmaceutical companies, particularly Glaxo Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham, Shire Pharmaceuticals, and others. The company works on contract with other pharmaceutical companies.
Some human cell tests are already well established. For example, the Eytex system replaces the infamous Draize test, which assesses the damage done as chemicals are dripped into the eyes of rabbits. An Eytex vial contains proteins that turn cloudy in response to irritating chemicals, just as the cornea of the eye does. The test is faster and cheaper than the Draize test and is highly accurate, with a 98 percent predictive value.
The Skin kit, made by Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc, tests compounds on growing human skin cultures. Because the skin culture shows the toxicity of products on various parts of the skin cells, it not only demonstrates whether compounds are toxic; it also shows why. The company also markets Dermagraft, a human skin graft used for burn victims, and is working on developing transplantable tissues from the liver and other organs. Testskin is a similar product for testing skin irritancy. Made from cultured human cells, it simulates the skin’s dermal and epidermal layers.
Burn Research without Animals
In the Spring 1996 issue, Good Medicine reported on efforts to replace animals in burn experiments with new tissue culture methods. A progress report from Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Camden, New Jersey, shows that the future has arrived. Dr. Charles W. Herwitt has grown cells in the laboratory to create tissues that respond like actual skin to burn injuries.
“In the last two months we have been able to accomplish one of our key experiments. Using the tissue culture skin model, we have successfully been able to inflict a burn injury. It has worked out very well and, I must be honest, I really didn’t expect this. I really felt deep down that animal research may still be the best way to go on this. But truly the results have convinced me otherwise.” The cultured skin reacts to burns like human skin and allows researchers to study burns without using animals.
Human Cell Tests Show Their Power
In the Multicenter Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity tests (MEIC), researchers from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and other countries tried 68 different test-tube methods to predict the toxicity of 50 different chemicals, such as aspirin, digoxin, diazepam (Valium), nicotine, malathion, and lindane. The effects of the chemicals in humans were already known from poison control centers. The study’s goal was to see how well the cellular tests matched actual human experience and to compare them with data previously reported for animal tests.
The results were presented at the Conference of the Scandinavian Society for Cell Toxicology, in September 1996. The human cell tests were clearly superior. The rat LD50 tests—lethal dose tests that measure the dose of a chemical that kills 50 percent of the animals given it—were only 59 percent accurate. The mouse tests were about 70 percent accurate, but the average human cell test was 77 percent accurate. Accuracy was boosted to 80 percent when results from three different human cell tests were combined.
The MEIC researchers have enlarged the number of chemicals they are testing. They are also using human cell tests to assess more complex processes, such as how drugs pass from the digestive tract into the blood stream or from the blood into the brain, and to measure the toxicity of drug breakdown products. Some companies have used animals for these purposes, but often get unreliable results in addition to the ethical objections such tests raise.
georgegwf
24-Apr-10, 21:13
There is a chemical compound called di-hydrogen monoxide which has been tested extensively on animals and humans alike and has been shown through many studies that in vast quantities is 100% fatal and once exposed to this compund all studies have concluded that human and animal alike will die if deprived of it. This chemical is used in foodstuffs, drugs, plastics in fact in every facet of life we are so dependant now on this chemical that even if deprived of this chemical for a few hours we become irritable, thirsty etc,etc :(
http://www.dhmo.org/
Yer link no working!
but its water incase anyone is wondering!
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 22:28
The following article highlights some of the testing alternatives available:
The PCRM, from whom your article is taken, are hardly an unbiased, reliable source - they're funded by PETA, have links to SHAC, and campaign against animal testing. Can you offer any independent, peer reviewed research which supports them?
Margaret M.
24-Apr-10, 23:16
The PCRM, from whom your article is taken, are hardly an unbiased, reliable source - they're funded by PETA, have links to SHAC, and campaign against animal testing. Can you offer any independent, peer reviewed research which supports them?
The Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine headed by Neal Barnard, M.D. is an ethical, highly respected organization that I have supported for years. Do you think that none of those alternative tests discussed exist, or with what exactly do you have a problem? It is thanks to PCRM and organizations like it that many of the alternate methods are used today. If no-one pushed for change it would still be cruel business as usual.
http://www.safermedicines.org/showarticles.php?pid=32
There is an abundance of information on alternate testing methods – do your own search. I’m sure you will find fault with any source that does not support your point of view whatever that may be.
The PCRM, from whom your article is taken, are hardly an unbiased, reliable source - they're funded by PETA, have links to SHAC, and campaign against animal testing. Can you offer any independent, peer reviewed research which supports them?
The webucated don't need those things. They have the web and their part of the web in particular. How very dare you argue with the webucated? :lol:
I know of some horrendous attacks against people by animal rights, one woman ran an online card company and they managed to get her home address by posing as customers, they then launched a terrible campaign against her and her kids, going to the lengths of following her to school with her child and threatening then to kidnap the child, sending gloves soaked in red paint to the child in the post and an awful hate vendetta, another case was where a shed was deliberately put on fire and the animals inside died an agonizing death and a letter left to say they were better dead than alive!!!!!!!!!!
The crime of these people was breeding rabbits to show. I am sorry but I truly think these people go too far, rabbits that are shown must be in peak physical condition and kept in very clean conditions, they have a good life but to these people they are just baby machines which is utter rubbish.
I used to be very into animal rights when I was young, I am absolutely for animal welfare but I truly think many animal rights groups are just thugs.
Yes unicorn, many if not most of them are thugs. The saddest part of it all is that they get their money from middle class webucated do-gooders with more time to spare than sense.
J C Denton
24-Apr-10, 23:59
The webucated don't need those things. They have the web and their part of the web in particular. How very dare you argue with the webucated? :lol:
Too true crayola, and I do like the "webucated" tag :)
It's interesting how attitudes towards the web have changed though. At the stump end of my education, when the web was in its infancy, it wasn't permitted as a source for any assignments or essays - to cite a website as a source almost guaranteed a fail. Now, the prevailing attitude seems to be "it's online so it must be true".
Margaret M.
25-Apr-10, 00:53
The webucated don't need those things. They have the web and their part of the web in particular. How very dare you argue with the webucated?
If you are referring to me, you are off base. I have known Neal Barnard for years and I do a lot with PCRM offline. I quoted a web source because I have no desire to sit here and type needlessly.
I truly think many animal rights groups are just thugs
Unicorn, I agree that some of these organizations go way over the line and do some despicable things.
Just wondering what peoples views are on PETA and their various campaigns?
I am against animal cruelty and in recent years even thought of turning vegan to support the cause but after thinking it through and actually researching PETA I felt humiliated by some of the things I was willing to support.
Recently I have been sent various emails about medical research using mice and how PETA want to stop this. This offends me something serious because I am a diabetic and like to think that one day their may be a cure for it but without animal testing I don't see what they'd test on?
I can see where your coming from in a way but I thought that synthetic insulin didn't involve using animal testing. What animals are used in diabetic research?
I know of some horrendous attacks against people by animal rights, one woman ran an online card company and they managed to get her home address by posing as customers, they then launched a terrible campaign against her and her kids, going to the lengths of following her to school with her child and threatening then to kidnap the child, sending gloves soaked in red paint to the child in the post and an awful hate vendetta, another case was where a shed was deliberately put on fire and the animals inside died an agonizing death and a letter left to say they were better dead than alive!!!!!!!!!!
The crime of these people was breeding rabbits to show. I am sorry but I truly think these people go too far, rabbits that are shown must be in peak physical condition and kept in very clean conditions, they have a good life but to these people they are just baby machines which is utter rubbish.
I used to be very into animal rights when I was young, I am absolutely for animal welfare but I truly think many animal rights groups are just thugs.
You could be right! Thugs hiding under other banners[disgust] like you say it's more welfare that concerns me too.
Too true crayola, and I do like the "webucated" tag :)
It's interesting how attitudes towards the web have changed though. At the stump end of my education, when the web was in its infancy, it wasn't permitted as a source for any assignments or essays - to cite a website as a source almost guaranteed a fail. Now, the prevailing attitude seems to be "it's online so it must be true".
The webucated may be misguided and indeed deluded but most of them offer very little threat to anyone. PETA on the other hand are more like a terrorist organisation. It's hard to appreciate the similarity until you've witnessed them in action and their apologists on here deserve our absolute derision.
Metalattakk
25-Apr-10, 02:43
I've been a type 1 diabetic for 34 years. I've injected myself over 26,000 times.
I'd happily throttle a hundred fluffy wee bunnies for every one of those injections, if it would mean finding a cure for Multiple Sclerosis.
Some things are more important than others.
I've never thought too much about vivisection, but if I was too take a side it would be with those that support animal tasting. However, one thing I've always wondered about celebrities that support PETA is how genuine are they? Is it because they really believe in the cause or because it's fashionable? I just find it hard to accept anything they say, preferring to believe that they are only doing it for their own publicity. :confused
I suppose another way of looking at the banning of animal testing is that cures for many diseases may take longer to find, thus it would be an easy and legal way of population control!
thebigman
25-Apr-10, 09:48
I've never thought too much about vivisection, but if I was too take a side it would be with those that support animal tasting.
As opposed to vegetarians :-)
The Exec VP of PETA, uses Insulin developed through animal testing. In what has to be the very definition of hypocrisy she said.
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
If you read their literature, PETA are against keeping animals as pets also.
YES!!!
I emailed them to ask about this and they said that they have already done the testing to find out about using insulin so there is no need to bring this point to Petas attention.
That may be true however if they had their way they would stop a lot of medical research from this point on which may result in never finding a cure for Diabetes.
I also recieved something from them that said "Meats Not Green" and that we shouldn't eat meat as it is destroying the earth. I may be wrong but I am sure I heard somewhere else that cows farts are one of the worst things for the environment?
So if Peta had their way there would be total animal liberation.
No pets, no dogs for the blind, no medical research, animals would have to decide themselves wether they should breed or not..... it would be terrible!!!
I can see where your coming from in a way but I thought that synthetic insulin didn't involve using animal testing. What animals are used in diabetic research?
I'm sure it was pigs they used when developing Insulin.
I also found this article which I have never read before and it says that its monkeys and pigs they are using.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4725082.stm
There is a chemical compound called di-hydrogen monoxide which has been tested extensively on animals and humans alike and has been shown through many studies that in vast quantities is 100% fatal and once exposed to this compund all studies have concluded that human and animal alike will die if deprived of it. This chemical is used in foodstuffs, drugs, plastics in fact in every facet of life we are so dependant now on this chemical that even if deprived of this chemical for a few hours we become irritable, thirsty etc,etc :(
http://www.dhmo.org/
You mean water :)
That reminds me of this clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.