Animal Testing

[HBK-aholic]

This is a big issue right now, and an increaing number of people are against it. The problem with it is that the people that are against it have almost always used a cosmetic or medicine etc. which was at first tested on animals.

One of the main people in the animal rights organisation PETA is diabetic, and takes insulin for that. Where does she think the insulin originated and where was it tested?

Animal testing isn't the best way to test a product I'm sure, but it's the best way we know of. Animals react very similarly to humans, and in that sense we need to use that in order to protect humans. Yes, in the end we have to test on humans but we get a good idea about the effects in animals at first.

I'm completely for testing medicines on animals, as we need that. For cosmetic purposes, not so much. If it's going to save a life, like a medicine should then I don't see too big of a problem with testing it on an animal at first if the conditions are good. But for cosmetic reasons it's such a superficial thing to do.

So what are your opinions on this?

 

[Slim Pickns]

When nessecary we should be able to test products on animals. Like you eluded to, the people who are so against animal testing really don't offer an alternative. It sounds harsh but, humans come first always have always should.

Using the insulin example, when it was first discovered, I would like to know what they expected. Should we just shoot up a human with some when we have no idea if it will effect their liver or long term health? For what? To save some animals life.

On the internet you will run into all sorts of pictures of bloody and deformed animals to try and get you to protest animal testing. When you see those, please think of the advancements in this gives us in important areas. Its not all just for some better brand of hair gel.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Damn straight. Pracitically EVERY known medicine is tested on rats first. Those stupid ass internet ads always show the cute animals all fucked up, becuase no one gives a fuck about rats, just cuddly wuddly rabitts and shit like that. Stupid.if there is no other way to measure advancement in pharmeceuticals, what the fuck are we supposed to do?? Just never cure new diseases?? Let people die??

 

[Father:_Polley]

animal testing is a MAJOR part of drug testing. nothing you take ever has a hope of getting through without being tested on animals, for the reason that if it kills a rat...it'll most likely do the same to you.
The thing is in England, people were also calling to do away with human testing for the likes of medicines following a mistake in a trial which left 6 men nearly dead. The thing is...if they ignored human trials and did the same thing in treatment, it's a bit more serious.
the thing about medicine is that it was BECAUSE of the thalidomide problems that animal testing became more important.
Cosmetics...well i suppose if it's something new it needs to be done, it has to be. otherwise, we're stuck with ugly women! joke

Animal testing is needed to advance. if they could...they'd test on us i reckon

As for PETA...well given my dissertation resulted in the deaths of 12 white rats purely for 2cm of the atery in their tails...i would be hunted down and killed.

 

[Murfish]

For me this isn't about being sympathetic for animals, it's that animal testing isn't very effective. There are some cases where there is little to no benefit in animal testing. There are other forms of testing that, both complete and being developed, are more effective. The problem is that companies want to do them because it is easy to pass and it is accepted as a credible test. But as for the moral obligations, I think it is cruel but also if it's necessary then it's necessary. And there are alternatives for the right now, like purchasing from companies that do not use animal testing as opposed to companies that do. Insulin was made in the past and what is done is done, but we are in the present where things can be changed,

 

[Father:_Polley]

There's no denying it's 100% effective, but it is a damn sight more effective than not actually testing on anything. I for one would be more happy taking a medication which has been past as safe to animals, as opposed to one which was never tested on anything

 

[JoesGonnaKillYou]

Animal cruelty is the most depressing thing on this planet in my opinion.

And who's the one that decided humans came first? Because last time I checked we're doing more harm then good for this world and we will end up ruining it for everyone and everything. Testing animals is pathetic.

 

[NYSandman]

I like animals, but I do not value their lives/comfort over humans. If a product may help someone with cancer or aids, and needs to be tested, do what you have to. I do believe, though, that test animals should be bred in laboratories specifically for that purpose, and not taken from the wild, which is cruel.

But, no matter how bad the test may be, many cures have come from testing animals.

I also do not believe that an underdeveloped fetus takes priority. I am all for stem cell research if, again, the fetus is grown in a laboratory.

I wonder how these anti testing people would feel if it were their child that was sick, and a product needed to be tested that might help. I have noticed that most people who are against medical testing are healthy. When your ass is coughing and urinating blood, you're not going to care where the cure comes from.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Animal cruelty is the most depressing thing on this planet in my opinion.

And who's the one that decided humans came first? Because last time I checked we're doing more harm then good for this world and we will end up ruining it for everyone and everything. Testing animals is pathetic.

This is the sort of reply I dislike, simply because you offer no alternatives. Animal testing isn't ideal, no one thinks it is. And if there were another way, just as effective without harming anyone then I'm sure people would want to use it. However as it stands, animals are close to us in DNA etc, and therefore we are given an idea of the side effects to humans, I don't know about you, but I feel a lot safer knowing there have been many trials, most involving animals, on drugs I'm then going to take.

I've always wondered though, how do you live life without using products that are tested on animals? I once researched animal testing and found it increasingly difficult to find products completly not tested on animals.

 

[Father:_Polley]

Animal cruelty is the most depressing thing on this planet in my opinion.

And who's the one that decided humans came first? Because last time I checked we're doing more harm then good for this world and we will end up ruining it for everyone and everything. Testing animals is pathetic.

Let's see, I have a pharmacy degree, but the chances that I know how dangerous pushing new drugs straight onto the public are slim aren't they? Drugs NEED to be tested otherwise people die. The fact is, humans decided they came first because they could. and I'm sorry, but I would rather an animal found a problem with a drug rather than a person dying before it was noticed.

Can you honestly turn around and tell me that thousands of children born without limbs because a drug wasn't tested properly isn't a shame. If you can...you're a heartless person

 

[kieran_devlin]

If the bloody scientists and pharmacist are gonna create a drug they may as well test it on themselves.

The rats didnt say well we want £500 to be a test subject.

I know that it advances study but its cruel with computers and machines these days they sometimes only use animal testing as a last test before human testing.

A lot of testing these days dosnt even use animals due to technological advancements.
Some testing is done on patients that have volunteered as a last resort to save them from there illness or condition.

One simple thing ill leave you with, if we still had slaves would you allow testing on them first?

Why should we be valuing one life over another?

THEY as in old scientists and doctors tested it on humans mostly. Like the cure for small pox was tested on a maid.

 

[kieran_devlin]

Yeah as i said a lot of medical trials are on terminally ill people. Testing is needed whoever said otherwise is stupid. Animal testing is being phased out tho so i dunno what the problem is.

On a light hearted note humans test some animal foods before the animal does like dog food or dog biscuits.

 

[Father:_Polley]

If the bloody scientists and pharmacist are gonna create a drug they may as well test it on themselves.

The rats didnt say well we want £500 to be a test subject.

I know that it advances study but its cruel with computers and machines these days they sometimes only use animal testing as a last test before human testing.

A lot of testing these days dosnt even use animals due to technological advancements.
Some testing is done on patients that have volunteered as a last resort to save them from there illness or condition.

One simple thing ill leave you with, if we still had slaves would you allow testing on them first?

Why should we be valuing one life over another?

THEY as in old scientists and doctors tested it on humans mostly. Like the cure for small pox was tested on a maid.

Every test needs to have an animal study done before it even makes Stage I clinical trials - before it makes it anywhere near a person. That is a fact. Yeah, you can minimise the amount that needs to be done by working out what the possible effects will be, but bottom line is, this NEEDS to happen in order to get a drug passed.

A small white rat is not the same as a human being and it's not right that you should compare testing on the two

 

[kieran_devlin]

The testing is fine now because it is done in limited circumstances and hundreds of pre tests are done and it is in limited capacity and animal testing is in decline.

What im opposed to is inhumane testing, ive seen pics of dead animals and i can defo tell you that it looked like way different to giving a rat an injection. Also testing cosmetics and stuff like that on animals is cruel. Also testing on animals when clearly the animal will die is a no no.

A rat probly has more purpose in life being a test subject than it ever did spreading disease in sewers.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Just so you know, I wouldn't look at the pictures that are on the internet regarding animal testing. Especially the ones showing 'cute' animals, such as bunny's etc. It's propaganda spread by animal rights activists to try and get people on their side, whenin fact animal testing isn't anything like those pictures. It's controlled, and animals aren't supposed to be in any of the states those pictures are in.

 

[Father:_Polley]

the fact is, past or not, new medications need to be tested on animals, otherwise people WILL, i repeat, WILL die unless you do.

Legally, the animals have to be kept in good conditions and their conditions both monitored and documented. Given that I'm actually studying this right now I hope it's true. Given the need for new drugs for conditions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, the tests are needed

 

[kieran_devlin]

The testing is fine now because it is done in limited circumstances and hundreds of pre tests are done and it is in limited capacity and animal testing is in decline.

What im opposed to is inhumane testing, ive seen pics of dead animals and i can defo tell you that it looked like way different to giving a rat an injection. Also testing cosmetics and stuff like that on animals is cruel. Also testing on animals when clearly the animal will die is a no no.

A rat probly has more purpose in life being a test subject than it ever did spreading disease in sewers.

So you agree with me that inhumane testing shouldnt be allowed? It is not common tho as much as the protesters say so. I mean like purposely cutting up a live animal or something.

So you agree that while some animal testing can be cruel it is now safer and on the decline and can be very valuable for research?

I still stand by the fact that animal testing is on the decline and a lot of safety measures and pre tests are done and it is in a limited capacity.

Clearly if a drug is going to kill an animal i would be opposed to it but if they didnt know or it had a chance of dying i guess it would be fine.
I mean if the animal was defiantly going to die when it took this drug and they wanted to see what happened that would be wrong to do.

 

[Father:_Polley]

so you'd be way against the fact that I killed 12 rats to work on my dissertation to test a drug to treat cancer?

The fact of it is, that despite all the tests they have beforehand, some animals will die because of this. And to be honest, sometimes that's a good thing. As i've said before, I would rather they found out a drug was dangerous by having a few rats, which are specifically bred to be tested, die and discover something unexpected with the drug, than having children born with no limbs. because like it or not, they do those tests on pregnant animals sometimes to test teratogenicity so the thalidamide disaster doesn't occur again.

 

[kieran_devlin]

First of all you cant cure cancer you kill it.
Cancer is a living tissue the only solution is to kill the cancerous tissue, this is done by using radiation to kill the bad cells.

So unless you have a rat that has cancer you cant necessarily do tests on it you need a patient who has cancer or you need to do computer and machine based tests and simulations.

You keep HAMMERING the fact you would rather a few hundred rats died rather than a human was born mutated.
OH but Abortion is fine isnt it you could just kill the kid if you knew if it was going to be deformed?

There is no such thing as a cure for cancer there will never ever BE a cure for cancer.

Lets get one thing straight why the hell would you fruitlessly kill animals come on they dont just randomly test on animals to see what would happen unless they are sure i mean they DONT test unless they are vaguely sure of what will happen because otherwise it is a waste of resources.

I NEVER ONCE SAID id rather have humans die than animals so dont go even suggesting or insinuating i would.

I just would kill animals for fuck all.

Your talking about 1% of testing that needs to be done on animals.

The Nazis used to inject die into human eye LIVING humans to see if they could change a persons eye colour FACT IS it never worked and they all became blind

Tests arnt done unless they are sure that it is okay to do so and dont give me bullshit about otherwise being so. This dosnt mean im talking about human testing im talking about animal testing and how they need to check if it is safe to do so.

Its obvious you dont give a fuck whether an animal dies or not. I mean is it so different from a pet dyeing?

If i come across angry at you specifically im not. Im trying not to sound a total dick head a swell.

 

[Father:_Polley]

First of all you cant cure cancer you kill it.
Cancer is a living tissue the only solution is to kill the cancerous tissue, this is done by using radiation to kill the bad cells.

The thing is though, radiation kills good cells, and all cells have a mechanism built into survive damage. I never mentioned curing cancer, I said treat cancer. what I was doing was testing drugs to make cancer treatments work better and to do that I needed tissue

So unless you have a rat that has cancer you cant necessarily do tests on it you need a patient who has cancer or you need to do computer and machine based tests and simulations.

The rats are given cancer. It's not a hard thing to do in practice. do I think it's a humane thing and would I want to give animals cancer if i had the choice - No.

You keep HAMMERING the fact you would rather a few hundred rats died rather than a human was born mutated.
OH but Abortion is fine isnt it you could just kill the kid if you knew if it was going to be deformed?

Read the early parts of the abortion thread and you'll find my views on abortion. It's not a part of my beliefs and I'd rather a child was born free from all deformities. Drug related or otherwise. And they do happen anyway. Anti-seizure medication is an example, where rates are 8 times higher than usual. But that medication still has to be taken. It's about harm minimisation for other drugs.

There is no such thing as a cure for cancer there will never ever BE a cure for cancer.

There might be. As for now, there are definately ways to improve treatments

Lets get one thing straight why the hell would you fruitlessly kill animals come on they dont just randomly test on animals to see what would happen unless they are sure i mean they DONT test unless they are vaguely sure of what will happen because otherwise it is a waste of resources.

I never said they randomly do it. They do it so they can pick up on any major flaws and so they can see the drug works in animals. bottom line is they're not going to test everything on animals until they're pretty sure what it does and how. As you said...it'd be pointless to test every tiny thing on animals. I'm just saying they HAVE to do it because it's the law

I NEVER ONCE SAID id rather have humans die than animals so dont go even suggesting or insinuating i would.

I just would kill animals for fuck all.

Your talking about 1% of testing that needs to be done on animals.

The Nazis used to inject die into human eye LIVING humans to see if they could change a persons eye colour FACT IS it never worked and they all became blind

The fact is, science has to be intelligent. People have to know what to do and have an idea of side effects before the animals are touched.

Tests arnt done unless they are sure that it is okay to do so and dont give me bullshit about otherwise being so. This dosnt mean im talking about human testing im talking about animal testing and how they need to check if it is safe to do so.

Its obvious you dont give a fuck whether an animal dies or not. I mean is it so different from a pet dyeing?

Never said they were done pointlessly. I knew what to expect from the drug I was working on and that was the only reason rats died for my research. and I do care about animals. I saw one of my rats being killed and I was nearly sick from it.

And don't worry dude, I'm not going to get upset about your views on stuff. The fact is, if they didn't have to, I wouldn't want things to be tested on animals because I love animals. They do have to though, except not before the drugs are pretty much sure that they're not lethal to the animals.

 

[kieran_devlin]

Off course radiation kills all living tissue, it kills the good cells and bad cells. That is why radiation is given in concentrated doses. Currently the only way is to either use a injection of radiation or what is it use rays or something i dunno its been a while since i did physics, been a while since i left school for that matter. Only certain types of cancer can be treated due to the fact the radiation has to pass good tissue.

I dont like Animal testing but sometimes it is the best solution currently.

Its a oxy moron where certain types of radiation can kill living tissue for a good purpose but other can create cancerous cells.

Im assuming you understand me know when i say that researchers Scientists Doctors only test drugs on animals when they are sure what will happen.

Of course they need to test drugs on animals even if they are sure it is safe, if it is safe then it should be fine to test it.

One of the alternatives or additional testing is to test on human patients who are in need of radical treatment.


Your not really curing cancer your killing it. There might eventually be way of killing all types of cancer but its really prevention that is precedent to finding cures.

 

[Father:_Polley]

It happens because it damages DNA, which can lead to mutations in the cells, which is the main cause of cancer. Gamma radiation is ridiculously bad for you though, and hardly ever used. If they can, they actually use radiation on the spot, or radioactive metal ions which can kill off certain tumours directly - Iodine goes straight to thyroid and kills off tumours there and limits damage elsewhere.

You mentioned human testing there. That does actually happen, except after the animal tests and after tests on those people who sign up for medical trials (after what I learned from it...I'm never doing it no matter how good the pay is). It only happens when they know EXACTLY what the right dose is to use.