Ban animal testing!!

But all I can think about is when you test to save lives on animals what bout theirs? Why don;t you test on someone who has already contrcted the virus Aids, cancer, etc and who are going to die any ways? I don't mean to sound cold hearted but how is it fair to the animal? I mean its not their battle to win...and they sure as heck didn't do anything wrong to be tested on.

 

We should be looking into alternatives to animal testing if possible, because the first round of testing drugs is very dangerous.

Thats why we can't test them on people.

A person with AIDS can be treated to help prolong their life. THere is much more we should be doing to help them.

If a drug test killed them, not only would they suffer, but so would their family and friends. Rats families aren't aware of it.

Please, go talk to someone suffering from a horrible disease that may be potentially curable. Any strangers life is worth saving if we have any chance.

 

There is an alternative to animal testing, epidemlogy studies. However I feel that it is not pushed that much by the likes of PETA and VIVA because more people would be wholefood omni like I am and less people would be vegan.

 

I loathe animal testing and do all I can as an animal activist to educate people so they will hopefully choose to buy cruelty free products. For those who don't know the horrors of animal testing, here's a video. This video is for MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY, VERY GRAPHIC: http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_Dy4gE4yM&search=vegan
Here's a website for further info: http://www.stopanimaltesting.org/
Here's a great company that only sells products free of animal ingredients and free of animal testing: http://www.jason-natural.com/

There is hope to stop animal testing, here's an article on viable ends to animal testing:


Animal Testing Replacement

In The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch saw replacement as the ultimate goal for laboratory animal based research, education and testing, with the other two of the Three Rs, reduction and refinement, being more-readily achievable in the short term.

Replacement alternatives can be defined as "methods or strategies which do not involve the use of protected animals in regulated procedures" (as defined in national or international laws, such as the Animals [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986 in the UK, and Directive 86/609/EEC in the European Union).

The range of replacement alternatives includes:
the collation and use of information already gained;
the use of physical and chemical analysis techniques;
the use of mathematical and computer models (including molecular modelling, structure-activity relationship [SAR] approaches, and physiologically based pharmacokinetic [PBPK] modelling);
the use of in vitro systems (including sub-cellular fractions, short-term maintenance cultures, and cells and tissues maintained in culture for longer periods);
the use of human-oriented post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological approaches, and the ethical use of human volunteers;
the use of organisms not classed as protected animals; and
the use of early developmental stages of protected animals species, before the regulations apply to them.
There are two main types of replacement, namely, direct replacement (for example, when in vitro human skin preparations are used instead of in vivo tests on guinea-pigs or rabbits), and indirect replacement (for example, when the pyrogen test in rabbits is replaced by the Limulus amoebocyte lysate [LAL] assay or a test based on whole human blood).

Replacement can also be total or partial. One kind of total replacement involves the decision not to require an animal test any more, since the information it provides does not justify its continued performance. A recent example is the decision of the European Pharmacopoeia not to require the Abnormal Toxicity Test for certain kinds of vaccines. This will reduce laboratory animal use in Europe by about 35,000 animals per year.

Another kind of total replacement is where information which is needed can be gained without recourse to the existing animal procedures, as in the case of the batch testing of hormones such as insulin and somatotrophin, and in the replacement of the rabbit pyrogen test.

A third kind of total replacement occurs when production via laboratory animal procedures can be replaced by in vitro production (for example, monoclonal antibody production in vitro in place of the in vivo ascites method).

There are also various kinds of partial replacement. For example, animal use by the pharmaceutical industry in the discovery of potential new medicines has been greatly reduced by the use of computer-based studies and in vitro systems as screens.

A second kind of partial replacement involves the use of physicochemical tests, SAR approaches and/or in vitro systems to identify highly toxic substances, so that any subsequent animal studies will be conducted either to confirm lack of toxicity or to identify mild or moderate effects. For example, scientifically validated in vitro methods are now available for identifying chemicals likely to be corrosive to the skin, and progress can be expected in the near future with in vitro methods for skin irritation.

This kind of hierarchical or stepwise testing strategy is now widely used by industry as a means of reducing both animal numbers and animal suffering, and is recognised in a number of OECD test guidelines (which form the internationally recognised system for the regulatory testing of chemicals and certain kinds of products). They are a good example of one way in which the Three Rs of Russell & Burch - reduction, refinement and replacement - can be achieved simultaneously as a result of the application of good and humane science.

 

Instead of giving people the death penalty, we should put them in a coma and test drugs on them the rest of their lives! Hey, it gets rid of the dangerous person, and their bodies get put to good use! Hmmm maybe thats like morally wrong or something...

 

Leaf, the video you posted is by the ALF, a group of firebombing terrorists.

Every single procedure you mentioned here:

Are already used to help prevemt the toxicity of medications, and to cut down on the scale of which we need animal testing.

Products which call themselves cruelty free are simply using no longer patented forumlas of tested cosmetics to produce them.

I think cosmetic testing on animals should be largely limited.

All the replacment procedures you listed are good areas to research in, but they are for the time, completly unviable to replace animal research.

Without animal research today, we lose our entire biomedical research field, which will enable us to save tens if not hundreds of millions of human lives in the near future.

Untill there is no longer disease which makes orphans of millions of children, and causes early painfull deaths for billions of people.

If you think a video of a monkey in a cage is graphic, spend a day with someone who's cancer is rotting them to the core.

While we should try to find better methods of reducing the numbers of animals we need to test on, animal research is essential.

Nothing you have posted will be able to replace the potential of animal research for millions of families.

 

Idiot.

 

^^^^^^ Amen

 

that was a joke. geesh

 

I have yet to see a reasonable alternative. Using prisoners (human ones, in jails) is not reasonable. We have a constitution, remember?

 

i know. It's like, "Let's torture these little animals in the name of mascara"

 

I've got three words, fuck your beliefs, I don't care if you think animals are on the same level as humans. I've yet to see a dolphin think of something like differential equations. Until that day arrives, I will consider myself the top of the food chain, with the power, and the right, to do as I please to lower life forms.

1+1 will never be 2, because that means your getting rid of the number one to make way for a bigger number, which will be the lowest so therefore will be coun ted as a one.

 

Sucks, and thats how it's been before in the past. I'd rather see a monkey die then my mother.

 

Humans are animals too. Would those of you would like all animal testing to stop, like to offer up your parents or children as replacements?

 

Oddly enough I think some of these folks would.

 

Medicine is ok to some extent but testing shit like make-up on rabbits is just plain wrong