Your View: Is Animal Testing Necessary?

1. sanasunshine. - August 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Even though animal testing can beneficial,
it can still be harmful,
which I don’t think is necessary.
With all the technology we have now,
can’t they find a safe way to test products,
without harming animals?

2. Wooty - August 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

If its a horrible and cruel thing to kill a rat, is it horrible to kill a bee? A spider? An ant? Lice and mosquitos? And we’ve killed thousands of those in our lives, whether we intended to or not.

I don’t think its strictly necessary, but if it’s the best way then I don’t see why not.

3. Riya B. - August 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I really don’t think using animals as test subjects isn’t necessary, but if it must be used, then it should be used as humanely ans painlessly as possible.

4. bigski - August 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Im all for it at all levels.There should be no arguement if its a human life that can be saved as opposed to an animal the point is moot.Im speaking as an animal lover {2 dogs,5 cats,1 goat}.

5. GregB - August 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

With such an emotive tagline it is easy to be swept up in sentiment and not fully consider the question.

The easy response would be “of course it is not acceptable to test on animals”

The underlying reality is that, without animal testing, the vast majority of medical advances simply would not have happened.

As a patient currently involved with a clinical trial, I for one am comforted by the fact that many of the adverse affects of a new medication are established in animals prior to being tested in a human trial.

With today’s litigious society, I think such medications would simply not make it to human trials.

It is an unfortunate and often unsettling reality that most of the drugs that you now take have been deemed safe through animal trials. If we were being totally honest, would we really want it otherwise?

6. nerdlette - August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Animal testing is a prime example of the egotistical nature of man. We consider ourselves free to abuse the natural world. We don’t have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we are obscenely parasitic. True, we have a higher state of consciousness than the trees or the mosquitoes, but should our awareness not make us MORE considerate of our beautiful planet and the rich life it supports? Is it really reasonable to cause a monkey, so very like a human, an unfathomable amount of pain so that we can have a new shade of lipstick?

7. burningskittles - August 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Hey all, Love the site and finally registered so I guess I’ll voice my first opinion on a controversial topic like this. I do not think animal testing is necessary and don’t find it to be very productive. Those that feel it is necessary to ensure our safety I believe are misled. I feel if you believe in testing so much you should volunteer to be tested on yourself, or better yet, let the testing be done on death row inmates. They’re going to be put to death anyway, might as well squeeze some kind of use out of them.

8. SlickWilly - August 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

burningskittles:

Why don’t you find it to be productive? Many human lives have been saved from drugs and medical procedures that have been extensively tested on animals to ensure their safety to humans. This is based on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of documented, legitimate scientific experiments from experienced researchers and academics. How is this being misled? The whole point of animal testing is so that we don’t have to put valuable human lives at risk. And if you somehow think that the life of a lab rat holds more intrinsic value than the life of a human being, I’d say your priorities are a little screwed up.

9. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

In terms of time, animal turnover is much faster to see long term genetic results. How many babies does/can a female rat produce to test for effects as opposed to a human female? And how fast? I don’t know the actual gestation, but their babies have babies much more quickly than we do.

I know you know this, BTW

10. stormy617 - August 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I think that for medical purposes it is necessary, however for cosmetic testing, NO.

I also think that every effort should be made to make the testing as humane as possible.

11. Mark - August 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

It’s very necessary for medical testing.
What are we supposed to do, experiment on humans!?

12. majestic - August 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

i think it is completely unnecesary and selfish.

13. Jenova4 - August 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

In a perfect world, medicines would spring out from factories, fully tested without harming animals. However, in response to burningskittles’s remarks, the same kind of forces fighting for animal rights would also be fighting for the rights of those inmates on death row. Human test subjects that volunteer for clinical trials would be great and all, but what if an unnecessary amount of death is caused to try and find the right combination of chemicals to treat a disease instead of testing it on other living organisms beforehand? Personally, I think that they should use previous data on fatalities due to chemical imbalances caused by certain products (or if they’re indeed already employing this option). However animal testing is invaluable in the still unmapped territory of cancer-causing agents and how high of a risk certain substances cause in terms of cancer. Also as a side note, marmots were the original carriers of the black plague.

14. rushfan - August 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

It depends entirely on the animal and the test. Primates are so similar to humans, it is both understandable why they make perfect test subjects as well as why it is cruel to subject them to painful tests. I honestly think most rational people agree that frivolous testing, such as cosmetics, is not justifiable if there are any other means of testing available, which there often is. There is no arguing medical advances have been made thru testing done on animals, but it is our responsibility as humans to ensure there is no agregous, unnecessary suffering or exploitation of animals.

15. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I still am VERY glad that thalidomide was not approved here in the states as it was abroad. The FDA felt further testing was necessary. The effects (birth defects) of that drug are heartbreaking, plain and simple. Test on animals? You bet.

16. glittershrooms - August 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I’m a 100% with you Stormy, I was just about to say that

17. segue - August 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I suffer a number of extremely rare, and excruciatingly painful diseases. If not for animal testing some of the early drugs I was briefly put on for pain control, would have remained on the market, killing untold millions by destroying their livers. Luckily, the testing *was* done, the drug pulled from the market, and I, along with millions of others, were given alternate drugs.
In many situations, like the one above, there is simply no other choice but animal testing. I wish there were. The sad fact is that, like it or not, we either test on animals, or send the drugs to market untested. Since my drug regime includes about 14 different drugs a day, I’m glad I know with confidence that they not only work as advertised in the literature, but work together without harm. Since more than one of the drugs are from the opiate class, and several are from the hydrocodone group, and others you wouldn’t have even heard of, I have to rely on the assurances of the drug companies that these substances work without undue harm. The drug companies, who are always working to improve their products, can only provide such assurances by constantly testing the newest configuration of ingredients. I benefit, directly, because as they improve the drugs, the drugs decrease my perception of pain. They not only decrease my perception of pain, they allow me to be more and more aware, less “drugged” in my thinking and my actions and reactions.
I owe this all to animal testing.
If there were another way, sure, I’d go for it, but I don’t have any problems with animal testing. I doubt that anyone in my situation would be.
Life is a series of compromises, some large, some small. If animal testing is a compromise, it’s one I gladly make.

18. dischuker - August 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

of course it is necessary. where else are we going to learn the effect of new chemicals in our bodies?

burningskittles - of course i believe in animal testing alot, so that it isn’t necessary on human subjects. the argument you present doesn’t make any sense.

19. MPW - August 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Yes it is awful that animals die for testing, but it is better than a human dying for the same cause.

20. John - August 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

I believe that it is completely necessary. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is not something that I advocate, but I would rather give 30,000 lab rats cancer to find a cure than let people continue to die of because some people don’t like animal testing. In a perfect world, we would not have to do animal testing, but then again, a perfect world wouldn’t have any problems either.

21. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

segue (17) As always, you said it best.

Just waiting for Anon

22. Tempyra - August 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

I think I’m with rushfan on this one. Yes, but it’s not a black and white issue. It depends on the type of test and the animal involved. For example, looking at the genetic effects of medicinal drugs by breeding 30 generations of Drosophila (fruit flies) = ok with me. Testing shampoo ingredients on rabbits/mice = not ok. Testing anything detrimental to their wellbeing on primates; animals that are capable of learning language and using tools = disgusting.

While I recognise that animal testing is carried out on many of the medicines and cosmetics I use (although I buy cosmetics with the label that says the maker hasn’t tested them on animals the ingredients may have been tested on animals by the supplier) I do find it quite abhorrent in general - the picture at the top of the page made me leave the computer thinking I was going to vomit initially.

I think that slapping down an international ban on animal testing though would be detrimental to far too many people’s health to justify it. Forcing pharmaceutical companies to develop and then implement comparably effective non-animal means of testing is a far better solution. That’s what I would like to see happen in my lifetime - new animal-free testing methods for medicines and cosmetics.

23. chunkylover77 - August 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Segue, geez guy I hope you are doing ok right now. 14 diff. drugs, wow, i mean … wow what ever you are suffering from I hope and wish the best of luck for you. Too bad hoping and wishing doesn’t really help your situation though, but i am sure those drugs that were tested on animals do!

24. Mortivore - August 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Yeah, I know I’m not the first person to say it, and I probably won’t be the last, but I’d rather give a rat some sort of liver disease than somebody I know.

25. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

chunkylover77(23)

Segue’s a woman. I admire her,too. Always have; always will. Amazing strength of character. She is my personal hero.

26. Anon - August 17th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Vera, (21),

Thanks for the *puff* and the smiley. I’m by way of trying to take a bit of a rain check and attempting not to expand my LV envelope insofar as I can. It’s not only the olympics and a slipping work schedule. I’ve had a marathon and exhaustive run-in alongside Randall elsewhere. There is every reason to believe the opponent(s) is/are drawing breath for the next round, because silence would virtually concede to me/us. Also one or two other sites of interest are still just ticking over (although in some cases I only imagine I can still hear faint heart-beats).

However, as a one-shot I’ll back segue to the hilt. At the same time I remember the reverence certain native American indians are said to have expressed towards the animals they killed for the food that sustained them. I consider we owe animals which have inadvertently (for them) saved human lives the same debt of gratitude.

I have friends who wish they had lived a few hundred years ago, when some of the presently known world was unknown and being explored, the times seemed more exciting and swashbuckling, and there was more freedom from regulations (not freedom for much else for most though). Well, I would have died long since a few hundred years ago, thanks to medicine as it then was, even if I’d managed to get myself born in the first place. I’ve no wish to have my arm amputated by a surgeon’s saw whilst aneasthetised by a shot of brandy or rum, thank you very much. I still have at the very least some sustaining remnant of every tooth, which even my parents didn’t at my present age. The wisdoms that were extracted were done so painlessly, not by string-and-door-knob, or some fearsome carpenter’s tool. I have no idea how many of the advances that see in my present privileged state of health are owed to animals, but I don’t doubt a number are, and I’m grateful.

I agree with all who have declared that no animal should be experimented on for frivolous reasons, or where human choice is available, such as cosmetics or smoking. The sight of a creature forced to drag-on-a-fag is simply obscene and degrades our *civilised* humanity as much as the animal.

A medic on air once made an interesting observation during a discussion of this very topic. He reminded us that no animal is a human being (for example rabbits can consume Amanita phalloides, the death cap toadstool, without harm, which attacks our nervous system and close to invariably kills us in a most undelightful way). He therefore pointed out that the effects of any drug or medicine on people are only fully known and understood when one generation has tried it out for a lifetime.

Finally, I will call as witness one of the greatest and best known supporters and popularisers of natural history of our time, Sir David Attenborough. Asked the same question, David replied that if one of his treasured granchildren’s lives had been, or could be saved by the sacrifice of animals, how could he possibly say no. And if he could not deny for himself and his family, what right had he to deny for anyone else.

27. Anon - August 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Jenova, (13),

P.S.

Nice one. Hadn’t thought of that. Mankind’s revenge. We ought therefore to experiment on unintentionally malevolent beasts that bestow deadly diseases on us. All those rabies bearers, mosquitoes, fleas, the Komodo dragon, the black rat, and so on. Rattus rattus, the main plague carrier: we have them around at times in our garden in Chile, sometimes they get into the roof for a day or two before we *discourage* them or a casual passing cat finds them out in the open at night. Boy, are we glad them lil’ ol’ bubos aren’t around here!

This comment would be accompanied by a big smiley if I knew how to do one.

28. Arkz_Archduke_of_Geeks - August 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

yes i think its necessary we need to make sure it will look safely ok certain things i worry bout like gene manipulation or testing diseases but for the most part they should be tested on animals… and hell even people…. death row inmates are wasting space use them for science same with lifetime inmates.. lower there sentence in the name of science

29. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Anon (27) You use the colon and the paranthesis to make a smiley. A semi-colon and a parenthesis to make a winky

30. Miss Destiny - August 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Well, it’s better than kidnapping immigrant kids and testing on them, now isn’t it?

31. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Now on to your comments (I was just waiting for you)I agree wholeheatedly about the native Americans respect for the entire animal. For the thanks they offered for the animal (and please people, let’s not get religious here And the wonderful quote that supports human life. Yes, we are papasites, as some one pointed out, but the testing is for the greater good. Look at polio. When a vaccine was available, people pulled up in their cars; injections administered thru windows, the demand and fear was so great. Do I need to describe what Iron Lungs were? Such a sad and awful life.

32. Vera Lynn - August 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

“parasites”

33. SMD - August 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Yes, with restrictions and with heavy consequences when abuse is found (as in life destroying). I don’t understand why we test on some of the animals we do, because we can get all the results we need from rats and mice, why use a beagle or a cat or a chimp (except where concerns of the brain are, of course). The thing that bothers me most about animal testing is complete unwillingness to make the process more comfortable for the animal being stabbed. They aren’t gentle with the animals, but have a tendency to be brutal, which to me is unacceptable. These animals are being used to better our lives (being humans). Can’t the animals we’re using for such things be treated with a little more respect? Mice and rats might be low on the food chain, and generally hated creatures, but there’s no reason for violent treatment. We can at least be humane about all this.

Other than that, I do believe it is necessary at this point. If there are viable alternatives we should use them, but if there aren’t we need to keep testing on animals. I want cures for horrible diseases…end of story.

34. DK - August 17th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

I agree with what seems to be the overall trend so far here. Should my lipstick or shampoo be tested on a fluffy bunny? no! But when it comes to medical issues, it makes far more sense to test first on lab rats than to go straight to testing on humans. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to be the first ever living creature that tried out some new medication, not having any clue what the effects may be, would you?

35. deadangst - August 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pm

A great, yet paradoxical question.

There are many benefits to animal testing, and many laboratories do follow humane practices. However I’m also certain that there would be many practices (and practitioners) in the world, which would not be humane.

Most of the cures in the modern world have been brought about by animal testing, and we owe a lot to the millions of animals sacrificed, so that we and our loved ones can have a (better) life.

So yes, if any of my loved ones were dying, and the only possible way to save their lives was animal testing, then I would definitely vote for it.

On the other hand, why must I consider myself better than any of the animals? If tomorrow, a superior alien race (or an animal species) arrives, and dominates us. Would I like it, if they were to use me or my loved ones for testing, so that they can live?
Would I like being subjected to inhumane (or inalien) testing, so that some species somewhere can live? What if they put us in cages, and presume that we don’t have feelings, emotions, and our lives are expendable for their greater good?

But such is life, with no direct right or wrong answers. It’s all a matter of choice, and what we do in that particular moment.

If life, and many of its choices weren’t paradoxical, how boring would it be?

36. stewart - August 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am

Its not nice being a rat if you cant tell someone “hey I have a really bad headache and I feel like I want to throw up for the past two months”. And you thinking this while the men in white coats are saying “see rate #99 is still alive and eating, it must not have an effect of him because his organs are still functioning”. Kind of like when people say “don’t worry its cold blooded it doesn’t feel any pain, look I can cut its eyes out and put I back in the water” But in the flip side, I am thankful for the potent drugs I can use when I am sick.

37. Rusty - August 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am

Peer reviewed and government controlled (hence in a democracy open to public input)animal trials are a necessary lesser evil.

Animal testing also improves the (greater) lot of animals, especially those of economic importance such as farmed animals and those on the endangered list. In NZ a deal of effort is spent on raising rare bird breads and keeping them healthy.

Animals are also increasingly used as sources of palliatives and cures, such as venoms.

Humans are tested on and some die and get ill - eg those in the English drug trial a year or so back. A few famous scientists have died through testing on them selves. We see documentaries on the way Chinese prisoners are tested on and parts recycled. And for those who would do that in the USA, lets hope that at least, you are not thinking of the Southern States…

In summary, as in all polls on ethics, it is going to depend on where you are standing. When it affects you personally it is entirely different to a dispassionate analysis. If cultural imperatives are considered then some will not consider doing it to cows, and some will do it to fellow humans.

If we extrapolate the argument to consider cloning and genetic research then what about streams of life manufactured just for testing and body parts harvesting?

Finally Ram Dass (aka Dr Richard Alpert) tells the story of physician Larry Brilliant trying to eradicate small pox in India. Every villager in every village had to be immunized or just one escapee could reinfect a thousand at a railway station. As they approached the head of each village they found that he would resist that plan with great vigour. Eventually they held him down and inoculated him and then the village would follow. Afterward the village feasted the interlopers and showed no animosity. In our view no child should suffer from a disease that causes blindness, disfigurement and brain damage. In their dharma all life is sacred, even small pox, and if you get ill from it, that is your dharma. Just as now suffering from a deliberating stroke, that is Ram Dass’.

38. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 1:01 am

Does anyone know how many of the greatest medical advances WERE tested on animals? E.g. did Alexander Fleming test penicillin on animals at all?

I ask because I read somewhere recently (I wish I could remember where!) that over the last two or three decades none of the big pharmaceutical companies have come up with any new antibiotics - they’ve just been refining the one’s we already had and giving them new names.

If the scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries made their great contributions to medical science without using animal testing - why can’t we?

Bear in mind that I don’t personally know whether these earlier scientists were using animals for testing; I’m just guessing here.

39. deadangst - August 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am

Interesting arguments from Rusty & Tempyra.

@Rusty (#37): Indians (mostly Hindus) do have a lot of belief on “dharma” & “karma”. If you do get inflicted by any misfortune, it is your “karma”. How you deal with it, is your “dharma”. That’s why many Indians (many generations ago, not the current breed) used to take everything in life in their stride, and used to live a life in balance with nature. I’m digressing here, but there is a religion called “Jainism”. (I’m sure it’s covered in one of the lists here.) The “Jains” are fanatical about not imbalancing nature. They don’t even eat anything that grows under the ground, for that is considered food for all the underground worms & life-forms. Jain monks, if they sleep on the ground, wont even change their posture throughout the night, for fear of crushing small ants and insects that might be moving around.
Just FYI.

@Tempyra (#38): I also wonder how many ancient discoveries, & medical advances were made without animal testing. Need to do some more reading on it.

40. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am

Okay, after a quick check of Wikipedia:

The diptheria antitoxin, insulin (for diabetics), streptomycin (the antibiotic used to treat tuberculosis), the polio vaccine, lithium (used to treat manic depression), non-volatile anesthetics, heart valve replacement surgery, the multi-drug antibiotic treatment for leprosy, organ transplant techniques, anti-transplant rejection medications, the heart-lung machine, and the whooping cough vaccine are all 19th/20th century medical advances that were tested on animals.

Penicillin was tested on mice in the late 1930s - not by Alexander Fleming, who had given up and thought that penicillin couldn’t be cultured in large enough quantities to be effective, but by a group of scientists at Oxford University.

Louis Pasteur used sheep to transfer anthrax and demonstrate his germ theory - one of the biggest advances in medicine ever, I think.

The ancient Greeks also utilised vivisection (Aristotle and Erasistratus were the first) and the physical Galen is even known as ‘the father of vivisection’.

So it appears that a LOT of medical knowledge throughout history was gathered from testing on animals.

41. Sarah At The Disco - August 18th, 2008 at 3:14 am

I think it’s totally wrong.
I think the people trying out whatever there making, should try it on themselves, or any other person willing to do it.
You can’t ask a dog if you can inject them with god only knows what. People could volunteer and get paid. Ya, animals have helped with a lot of discoveries, but i’m sure there has been plenty of cases were it didn’t work out so well.

42. filipinoknight - August 18th, 2008 at 4:53 am

If it’s done humanly then yes continue to test on animals. To those who oppose it and think it’s so wrong you are probably the first ones to put out a mouse trap or call an exterminator if you find “vermin” in your house eating you food and destroying your property. And they do not use dogs, cats, monkeys, or elephants(dont know just threw it in) to test. They use animals who reproduce faster under controlled HUMANE conditions these days(government restrictions are a bitch huh)

43. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 5:14 am

filipinoknight: Who is this ‘they’ of which you speak?

“To those who oppose it and think it’s so wrong you are probably the first ones to put out a mouse trap or call an exterminator if you find “vermin” in your house eating you food and destroying your property.”

Oh really? That’s quite a assumption you are making there.

44. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 5:50 am

I’m afraid this one is a no-brainer. The answer quite simply is Yes, animal testing is necessary.

No argument made against it has ever risen above the most puerile kind of illogical moralizing, along with the occasional nonsense statement that goes “with all the technology today, we don’t need animal testing!” –clearly made by people who haven’t a clue. (If computer modeling technology were that great, medical science would almost certainly no longer be the guessing game it continues to be; obviously, however, modern medicine is still in large measure made up of stabs in the dark and lots of reliance on statistical trends. If technology was so advanced that we could use it to determine what effects various new drugs would have, we could probably use that same technology, or something akin to it, to *precisely* determine what is wrong with people and how to *precisely* fix it–and probably find potential maladies well in advance of their becoming actual afflictions. Clearly this ain’t the case however).

I am affiliated with a major top-class research university, as I’ve mentioned here before. I have many friends doing animal experimentation. (Not all of which is in any way harmful to the animals, by the way–we think of animal experimentation and we think injection of drugs and dissections and such, but it doesn’t always work that way). It’s not a frivolous matter to them; they’re developing technologies and procedures that can benefit mankind and science in general.

45. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 am

Randall: So if it was a choice between testing something on an animal and testing something with a computer model, would you go with the animal?

46. Lleana - August 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am

I can give you 100s of examples showing for a fact htat animal experiments do not work and kill more people than they help:

According to a report released in Washington in August 2002, the leading cause of death in the US is now recognised to be ADRs. No longer heart attacks, cardio-vascular accidents nor cancer, but animal-tested pharmaceutical products.

A report in the Telegraph paper on 12/5/06 said about Adverse Drug Reactions - ” Tens of thousands of patients are suffering adverse reactions to drugs with at least 250,000 needing to be admitted to hospital every year at a cost to the NHS of nearly £500MILLION. Serious reactions can kill or cause respiratory failure or heart attacks. Lesser reactions can cause rashes, muscle pain and dizziness and many other symptoms.But doctors are notoriously bad at reporting such problems, often because they feel that minor reactions are so well known there is no need to do so. Others are so rarely seen by individual doctors that they do not make the link.Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science at the BMA, said yesterday that only about 10 per cent of adverse reactions are reported, according to research.”

The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that “the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.”
A 2004 paper in the British Medical Journal concluded that “the contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation.”
The recent Health Committee inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry concluded that the regulatory standards for new drug approval require urgent review.
This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government “has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.”

Penicillin , for example was nearly thrown away never to save human lives becuase in animal tests it gave misleading results in rabbits and later tests showed it killed guinea pigs. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.Sir Alexander Fleming himself said: ‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a licence, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised.’
Thalidomide, the infamous cause of birth defects in more than 10,000 children in the early 1960s, induces birth defects in very few species. Dr James Schardein, the doyen of birth defect studies, says: ‘In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, two breeds of dogs, three strains of hamsters, eight species of primates, and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally.’ Ironically, if thalidomide, the drug whose side effects made animal testing obligatory, were assessed exclusively on its results in such tests it would still be passed today.
Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT), prescribed to many millions of women because it lowered monkeys’ risk of heart disease and stroke, increases women’s risks of these conditions significantly. The chairman of the German Commission on the Safety of Medicines described HRT as ‘the new thalidomide’. In August 2003 The Lancet estimated that HRT had caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer over the past decade in Britain, in addition to many thousands of heart attacks and strokes.

After a project using over 18′000 mice , Teropterin was used to treat acute childhood leukaemia ; but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated.

Dr Albert Sabin, the inventor of the polio vaccine, swore under oath that the vaccine ‘was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of [it] in monkeys’.

Asbestos is another example. The link between cancer and asbestos was made as long ago as 1907; but, after scientists failed to induce the disease in animals, it took more than 30 years before the human-model evidence became irrefutable.

Arsenic, a poison to humans is harmless to the sheep. Sheep, goats, horses and mice can also eat hemlock in huge quantities - whereas it is a poison to humans.

Morphine is an anaesthetic for humans, yet if it is given to cats, it produces a state of frenzied excitement.
Vitamin C is not needed at all by dogs, rats, hamsters and mice, as their bodies produce Vitamin C of their own accord. If humans, primates or guinea-pigs are deprived of Vitamin C, they can die of scurvy.

Former director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Richard Klausner lamented: “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.”

UNSAFE FOR HUMANS
The following, taken from Dr Ray and Jean Greek’s book, are just some examples of pharmaceutical drugs which have been deemed safe for human use after extensive animal testing, but which were later found to cause serious side effects.
•Amrinone: Use of this drug for treating heart failure led to 20 per cent of patients developing thrombocytopenia (a lack of blood cells needed for clotting), despite a comprehensive program of animal studies in mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, dogs and rhesus monkeys. Some of these patients died.
•Birth control pills: These are known to cause life-threatening blood clots in some women, yet scientists have still not been able to reproduce this finding in animals. In fact, dog testing predicted that the pill would decrease the likelihood of clotting.
•Chloramphenicol: This antibiotic caused life-threatening anaemia in humans. Chloramphenicol is an example of a drug whose effects vary from species to species: dogs do well with it, cats die from it, cows tolerate it but horses do not. It is so toxic to susceptible humans that its use has been outlawed in animals used for food. The tiny amount consumed from ingesting a hamburger made from a treated cow will cause death in such a person unless they receive a bone marrow transplant.

•Diethylstilbestrol: This synthetic oestrogen was designed to prevent miscarriage, but it did just the opposite by increasing the rate of spontaneous abortions, premature births and neo-natal deaths. No human trials were done; all the safety data were collected from animals.
•Eraldin: This heart drug was withdrawn in 1975 after causing serious side effects in an estimated 7,000 victims, 23 of whom died. It had been tested for six years in mice, rats, dogs and monkeys and when introduced on the market was “particularly notable for the thoroughness with which its toxicity was studied in animals, to the satisfaction of the authorities”. Even long after the drug was withdrawn, scientists failed to reproduce these results in animals.
•Floxin: This antibiotic progressed through animal testing, only to cause seizures and psychosis when used by humans.
•Isuprel: A medication used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to humans in the amounts recommended based on animal studies. In Great Britain alone, 3,500 asthmatics died from using the medication.
•Manoplax: This heart drug, which had been tested on rats, mice, rabbits, cats and guinea-pigs, was withdrawn worldwide in 1993 after analysis of patients showed that those taking it were at increased risk of hospitalisation and/or death.
•Methysergide: This treatment for migraine led to severe scarring of the heart, kidneys and blood vessels in the abdomen, although scientists have been unable to reproduce these effects in animals.
•Opren: This treatment for rheumatism and arthritis killed 61 people and caused 3,500 adverse reactions. Withdrawn in 1982, the drug had been tested on monkeys and other animals for nine years with no adverse side effects.
•Phenylpropanolamine (PPA): This drug, found in many common cold and flu remedies, was banned by the FDA in the US after it was linked to causing between 200 and 500 strokes in young women a year.
•Primacor: This medication, given when the heart is not pumping enough blood, worked well in rats but increased deaths in humans by 30 per cent.
•Ritodrine: This drug, prescribed to avert premature labour, induced pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs, causing breathing difficulties and possibly death).
•Suprofen: This arthritis drug was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release, researchers said this about the animal tests: “…excellent safety profile. No.cardiac, renal [kidney] or central nervous system [side effects] in any species.”
•Tamoxifen: This drug, used to treat and prevent breast cancer in women, caused liver tumours in rats but not in mice or hamsters. The drug has been shown to be harmless to the developing foetus of rabbits and monkeys, but to cause bone abnormalities in rat foetuses. One of the side effects is nausea and vomiting, but this was not predicted in animal studies, even though high doses were tested in dogs — the species considered most predictive of vomiting in humans. The drug has also been implicated in uterine cancer, blood clots, memory loss, absence of periods, and eye damage such as cataracts.
•Zomax: This arthritis drug killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.

A quote from http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/a … ction.html :
The vivisection industry has placed itself in an ivory tower above questioning. With our money it has created a system which is completely self-monitored and self-regulated. It is imperative that we take the vivisectors down from their ivory tower, expose their research as fraudulent, and replace it with valid research that will enable us to create a healthy society.

47. Arkz_Archduke_of_Geeks - August 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am

Lleana: proof we need to test on humans

48. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 6:40 am

Tempyra:

As I said, computer modeling is NOT up to the task. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to look into the matter yourself–I have a friend just two buildings over from me who is one of the top researchers in computer science in this country, and he could assure you that when it comes to the needs of medical testing, our computer modeling technology today is just no replacement for actual animal testing–and this is in part because medical science itself cannot give computer scientists the data they need to build better systems–because medicine is still in the dark as to how and why living things work on many levels–particularly on the cellular level.

This is just my own personal opinion–but the way I would put it is… despite the fact that we see many modern marvels of technology associated with medicine–CT scans, MRIs, new drugs, new procedures, etc. –the fact is that medicine is still relatively primitive as sciences go. It shoots in the dark as often as it goes in equipped with knowledge.

We think ourselves so advanced in so many ways, because of computers and the internet and space probes and cell phones and so on and on… but what we seem squeamish to admit is that our medical technology is only a few steps removed in advancement from the potions and practices of what passed for “medicine” 500+ years ago. We’ve learned a lot and invented a lot, but we still have a very long way to go.

So… the answer to your question is yes, I would choose animal testing over computer modeling, certainly for the present, until such time as our knowledge finally reaches the point where such testing become superfluous–if we *ever* get to that point.

49. Hobolad - August 18th, 2008 at 6:48 am

This is a toughie, though I guess I’m gonna have to say “Yes”. Measures should be made to minimise the hurt and the numbers of animals used- and alternatives for the future rather than an outright ban.

I don’t say “Yes” because I think it’s the moral thing to do, however- I completely don’t. It’s for purely selfish reasons- an ill human can plead and tug at your heart strings- and could be someone you know. These animals are out of sight and out of mind.

That may sound horrible- but to say it’s moral would be, for me, even more so.

50. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 6:55 am

Lleana:

Clearly you are some PETA person or other with a nice big axe to grind, and you’ve come equipped with an equally nice, big set of propaganda talking points to slice us up with. In all such instances, of course, it’s easy to slant bits and pieces of the truth to support one’s view, but this requires leaving big chunks of the truth out in order to make your case.

You also, one notes, made absolutely no attempt to tell us what alternative we should take, instead of testing on animals. Testing on humans? Impractical and logistically difficult, for many reasons, as well as morally questionable to say the least. Also, hard to see how you’d find enough (willing) human test subjects. Computer modeling–I’ve debunked that one already. Praying to Ba’al for guidance? About your only remaining alternative, and would make about as much sense as you make in your long-winded diatribe.

“According to a report released in Washington in August 2002, the leading cause of death in the US is now recognised to be ADRs. No longer heart attacks, cardio-vascular accidents nor cancer, but animal-tested pharmaceutical products.”

Bullshit. Identify this “report” you’re citing.

In fact, your entire comment can be boiled down to an argument, in a logical sense, simply for *more rigorous* animal testing, if anything. But actually all it tells us is what I said above, to Tempyra–medical science is still relatively primitive and amounts as often as anything to stabs in the dark. You want to make it worse? Remove animal testing as a means for acquiring knowledge.

51. ringtailroxy - August 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am

Lleana~
you have made the exact same comments I was going to make, and used many of the same examples I was going to! Right-on, sister!

as a Veterinary Tecnician student, I have many conflicting ideas concerning this topic. But my logic is not flawed… perhaps it is my ethics that are.

You see, before any new vaccine or medication or even procedure is made available for animals, whether they be pet or livestock, there is extensive testing done ON THAT SPECIES. many individuals will die so that their bodies can be examined to deterimen exact physiological responses to the procedures/drugs/tests…and the humane death of many may resylt in the eradication of suffering for a great many more…

we don’t test a drug intended for a chicken on a cat. although many medications are used “off-label”, meaning that the drug is not FDA approved for usage in a species other than the one indicated, many studies and tests may have determined the drug may be safely ued in another species for specific conditions.

what pains me is the astonishing large business of “creating & supplying” animals for the medical field of research and development…

rats
mice
guinea pigs
rabbits

ferrets
beagles
(remember the first heart transplant was done in dogs!)

cats by the thousands
pigs
reptiles of all types
primates

and recently, farm animals.

not to sound cruel, but, casting ethics aside, a great source for human test subjects would be our penal system. those derelicts of society, that’s actions land them incarcerated for LIFE or death row, are a perfect source!

they are in a ‘colony’ like environment. it would not be difficult to oversee such an opperation. at least they could contribute something to society-after all, each & every one of us pay taxes that go to fund prisons and prison programs… why not make it benefit society medically?

ethically, that is an appauling idea - but one with merit…. because one does not find oneself incarerated in a mazimum security prison because one hit & killed a drunken homeless man with your car,(I did, and it was the singular worst expwerience of my life!) or got caught with a 1/4 oz of weed,(never) or even had 3 DUI’s(never had 1, although I should have!). you have got to really screw up monumentally, and repeatedly, to land yourself in such a place.

rtr

52. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 7:12 am

Randall: - Thanks for the reply. I’m hoping technology gets to the point where we don’t need animal testing sooner rather than later

Lleana: Does the Washington report you quoted above include or exclude cases where the wrong drug was administered by accident? ‘cos that happens quite often.

53. Hobolad - August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am

I love how any facts that disagree with Randall are “propaganda”. Randall- we get it, you disagree with Lleana- but from where I’m standing, you’re arguments are merely attacks alongside assurances that you know people who know things- we can’t just assume you know better than everyone else in the thread y’know. That’s not how things work.

And why should she talk of an alternative? If the PETA types have the facts that show animal testing to be inefficient or even harmful if this report says what Lleana claims, why should it be ignored if they lack an alternative?

I mean, if we start sacrificied people to volcanoes, and then people can prove it makes no difference, do we jut carry on doing it until those people think of an alternative?

I don’t necessarily agree with Lleana- mostly because I don’t know about this whatsoever- but there’s no reason to be a dick.

54. ringtailroxy - August 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am

Randall~

maybe Lleana, like myself, is NOT a PETA supporter. I despise PETA. I despise their methods… unfortunately, they have gotten legal reactions and responses due to their outlandish stunts, and therefore, because they get a response, they continue the behavior. it’s like rewarding a growling dog by petting it and saying “There, there, it’s okay”. then when the dog finally bites someone, the response is always “I don’t know what happened”.

I was not 100% clear on my stance… I oppose animal testing when it is done to test pharmacueticals and beauty products for humans. but I am not opposed to animal testing for animal’s health needs.

this ideal of mine may change-I have noticed that as I get older, many of the ideas I once had have fallen out of favor or been completely disproven…but for now, it’s what i think is correct.

I do support the Hmane Society of the United States and the United Fund for Animals… as well as many local breed rescues. I do not support such groups as the March of Dimes, but I do support The Population Connection.

I work in a field where ‘outsiders’ cannot understand how a family can spend $5,000 to repair their German Shepherd’s dysplastic hips, or charge $9,000 to save the life of their cat that was hit by a car…but I can, and do, understand.

Because I myself spent 3 grand to save my cat when she was hit by a car, and over 5 grand to help my beloved service dog when he was diagnosed with cancer.(he was my constant companion,going to retsuarants, movies, planes, even attending some classes on campus with me at a community college.) the community helped me, too-i had over $700 donated anonymously from different individuals to aid me in paying the vet bills…

rtr

55. longball - August 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am

I dont think that animal testing is bad, it isn’t safe. My grandparents had there dog stolen for “scientific research”. He was one of two dogs out of over a hundred animals that lived through the experimentation.

And if they are going to test products for humans out on animals, why not test them on animals that at closer to our genetic makup? For example, why test rats and mice when pigs are closer to us (organs) and monkeys (DNA)??? A minute amount of chocolate can kill dogs but i’ve never heard of it killing a human. I wonder what kind of products that have been vetoed because they harm animals that would actually help us humans out have been canceled or destroyed. The cure for cancer probabally…..lolz

56. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am

Hobolad:

Must you *always* be an obnoxious little snot, Hobolad? Did you have some sort of religious vision that it was your mission in life or something?

A) I mentioned the friend of mine in computer science because HE knows more than I do about the topic. I personally don’t believe in running to authority every time one makes an argument, but then again I didn’t really do that if you read close. I stated what was wrong with the idea of using computer modeling, and my mention of the friend working in the field really had no bearing on my argument. The argument I made was sound and factual, and NOT “merely attacks alongside assurances” that I “know” people. YOU, Hobolad, are guilty of the same kind of crap that Lleana is guilty of, therefore–skewing the truth and making some selective deletions from it in order to help validate your point–which was invalid to start with. You can make your apology anytime. I prefer daffodils and a nice card.

B) As for the use of the word “propaganda,” what would YOU call it, Hobolad, in your infinite wisdom? A balanced presentation of the truth? Hmmm?

C) Why should she talk of an alternative? Well what’s the point of making her statement, otherwise? Let’s say it was true that animal testing was wildly inaccurate and inefficient (this has by no means been established simply because Lleana has thrown a pile of unsupported statistics out there, loosely into space, with no context). Okay. Whoopee. Now what? The question at hand is whether animal testing is necessary, not how well it works. CLEARLY Lleana, in posting here, has taken the stance that animal testing is unnecessary and wrong. But she’s done more than that–she’s presented a heap of (unsubstantiated and non-contextual) evidence to support her apparent view. A statement of such length and complexity, then, demands that one take the natural (and intellectually brave, one should add) step of fulfilling the argument to state what one thinks the alternative OUGHT to be.

Because see, a grown up recognizes that much, and probably most, of human endeavor is inefficient, wasteful, and/or improvable by a long shot. Do we stop what we’re doing because of this, however, or do we strive, within our best, to make things better? I pump for the latter, personally. Fossil fuels are wasteful and inefficient in many ways. But they give us the biggest bang for the buck for the present. I’d rather we found cleaner and better sources of energy and I think we should be working harder at doing so. But there’s obviously a cadre of people out there who think we shouldn’t use nuclear, for instance, as an alternative. Nice, and maybe I don’t entirely disagree with them. But it’s not enough to present the argument as to why we shouldn’t turn to nuclear. I want to hear–and I think it’s more important than anything else that we DO hear–what they think the alternatives should be–and those alternatives need to make sense and need to offer us the same (or better) benefits that nuclear would–or let’s face it, we’re probably screwed.

Same goes for this argument. Lleana goes out of her way to write a lengthy missive on this question–then she damn well ought to present us with her alternative. And the alternative better be as good as the option at hand–animal testing–else her argument is nullified.

D) Your volcano analogy is way off and silly. Clearly animal testing HAS made a difference. I would assume you’d recognize it’s a question of DEGREES of difference.

As for my being a “dick,” I’d expect you to be aware that the pot calling the kettle black is an old and tiresome, but worthy axiom to bring up here, Hobolad.

57. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am

I don’t think Lleana wrote all that herself; I think she ‘copied & pasted’ the majority of it actually.

58. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am

Word for word (right down to the typo in the first paragraph) copied from here:

http://www.animalrightsdiscuss.....mp;p=44785

59. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 7:53 am

ringtailroxy:

Some of my best buddies are in veterinary medicine, ringtail. In fact, again, it’s a field I’m professionally close to, without saying too much. I should make it clear that I’m an animal lover myself (’cept for possums. I don’t like possums… I’ve had several run-ins with them. I know they’re out to get me).

60. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 7:57 am

I am not 100% sure but I think the information contained in Lleana’s comment (and the one made in the link in my previous comment) comes from this book:

Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Animal Experimentation, by C. Ray Greek, MD, and Jean Swingle Greek

61. trojan_man - August 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am

Lleana: This is from the CDC website…

Deaths-Leading Causes

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart disease: 652,091

Cancer: 559,312

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809

Diabetes: 75,119

Alzheimer’s disease: 71,599

Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901

Septicemia: 34,136

If we can eradicate heart disease, cancer, and stroke by testing on animals, then test away.

62. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am

Randall: possums are scary! The brushtail possums that are such a huge problem in New Zealand are incredibly vicious lil creatures but strangely, everyone in Australia seems to think they’re cute (they’re native to Australia and introduced to NZ).

63. Hobolad - August 18th, 2008 at 8:08 am

“Must you *always* be an obnoxious little snot, Hobolad? Did you have some sort of religious vision that it was your mission in life or something?”

You’re quite the hypocrite, every argument I’ve seen you in (and yes, as soon as you join in they become arguments- you can’t seem to let your posts be as small as their actual content, and the padding out of them with insults tends to turn amiable discussion into full blown arguments). Just because most seem to be tongue deep in your arse doesn’t mean everyone finds your insults to be signs of intellectual superiority or whatever else you fancy your posts to convey.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this occasion- but everytime you muscle into a topic you create a bad atmosphere. It’s not needed.

@A: You do it often. You often bring up professors at wherever you’re at, or whoever- you just never say anything of substance, just that “So-and-so supports me” and then you claim that to be sufficient debunking of whatever the subject it.

@B: I would say it’s as valid as any other evidence presented. It just seems that whenever you post evidence- then it’s TRUTH- whenever anyone posts any, it’s wrong. You don’t say why it’s wrong, but it disagrees with what you say so therefore it must be, right?

@C: You’re making no sense. “Is Animal Testing Necessary”- if it’s proven to be doing active harm compared to if it wasn’t carried out at all, then obviously that means it’s unnecessary. Not having an alternative ready doesn’t suddenly make it necessary again. Fittingly for the subject- you can diagnose an illness without having a cure ready, it doesn’t negate the diagnosis.

@D: It has made a difference. Positive and negative- if this report shows that side effects of the medication are bigger killers than the illnesses themselves…

“As for my being a “dick,” I’d expect you to be aware that the pot calling the kettle black is an old and tiresome, but worthy axiom to bring up here, Hobolad.”

I may be a nasty piece of work (on the internet at least As are we all) but I’m never the one to weigh in with insults first, if you’ll notice. You expect people to not react when you join nice little discussions with posts full of insults?

64. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 8:16 am

Tempyra:

They are VERY vicious, at least in my experience. I’ve had four separate encounters with the little bastards, and have thus removed them from my List of Nice Animals I’d Like to Be Reincarnated As.

On the other hand, we have what has been identified (apparently) as a mink hanging out on our beach. Cute isn’t the word for this little guy, (or perhaps mom?) and he/she doesn’t go out of his/her way to attack and/or otherwise scare the beejeezus out of me when I’m just innocently walking down to work on my boat. Unlike the hated possum, which in my experience lies in wait in order to pounce out at me, hissing and snarling like the creature of hell I in fact believe it to be.

65. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 8:17 am

Ringtail-

I’m not a medical professional, but from what I understand drugs, procedures, etc are tested on animals first, then humans in tightly controlled experiments. They don’t just test a cancer drug on a bunch of mice, then ship the drug to Walgreens.

“not to sound cruel, but, casting ethics aside, a great source for human test subjects would be our penal system. those derelicts of society, that’s actions land them incarcerated for LIFE or death row, are a perfect source!

they are in a ‘colony’ like environment. it would not be difficult to oversee such an opperation. at least they could contribute something to society-after all, each & every one of us pay taxes that go to fund prisons and prison programs… why not make it benefit society medically?

ethically, that is an appauling idea - but one with merit….”

Even mentioning experimentation on incarcerated human subjects is abhorrent, and no amount of reasoning can make it otherwise. “One with merit”??? Are you kidding me?

HOBOLAD-

Read Lleana’s post again. She (or whatever website she copy/pasted from)clearly cherry-picked examples that support her opinion, without any mention *at all* of the legions of examples that could refute her claim. Open your eyes. What’s your definition of propaganda?

Why should she produce an alternative? Well, if you blindly and unquestioningly believe every word she said, then she wouldn’t have to. If animal testing doesn’t work, then why would we need an alternative?

The problem here is that it DOES work in not all, but SOME cases. And until a viable alternative is produced that both alleviates the need for animal testing, and does not require risking HUMAN lives, then we should keep on doing what we’re doing.

66. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am

Ringtail-

I’d like to temper my previous post. If you were just joking, I apologize.

67. Bob - August 18th, 2008 at 8:24 am

Its totally necessary. Would you rather we test on humans? I can’t believe these PETA nuts! Get a life people. Caring about animals to the point that humans suffer is SICK and wrong. These people are complete morons driven by emotion and not logic.

68. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am

Hobolad:

Okay, you’re in love with being a prick; I don’t respect that, but if you’re doing what you love, then I suppose you’ve found your way to happiness.

I find it amusing (and VERY telling) that the only people I ever hear this sort of criticism from (i.e. the one you’re leveling at me) are those with whom I’ve had strong disagreements in the past (as I believe you and I have had). Interesting, also, that you feel it SO important to chastise me that you’re taking this off-topic to this regard, EVEN THOUGH you and I evidently agree on the issue at hand!

Ridiculous.

“…Just because most seem to be tongue deep in your arse…”

Another one I ALWAYS hear from the resentful FEW here who have a bone to pick with me, such as you–that I’ve somehow fooled and cowed tons of other people here on this site into bowing and scraping to me as some kind of intellectual superior. A) I happen to believe most of the people here are way smarter than that, Hobolad, and B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic asshole you portray me as, that I would have been found out long ago and laughed and mocked off this site and probably even barred from it by Jamie. You want to see me as nothing more than a gigantic blowhard because you’ve disliked what I’ve had to say at times. You don’t like my prose style and find me insulting. I say to each their own, but I DO note that we’ve disagreed in the past and I think it’s clear you have a personal beef against me. I ALSO NOTE THAT *YOU* ATTACKED *ME* FIRST HERE on this thread–a snide and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY commentary on what I’d written to *someone else.* If you feel you’re right about me, Hobolad, then why not just leave it allow others to see it for themselves? But it seems to me that you have some NEED to attack me and felt it necessary to call me out. Paints you in a worse picture here, in my opinion.

69. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am

You know what statistic I’d love to see: what proportion of PETA followers are fervent pro-choicers.

70. Hobolad - August 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am

“HOBOLAD-

Read Lleana’s post again. She (or whatever website she copy/pasted from)clearly cherry-picked examples that support her opinion, without any mention *at all* of the legions of examples that could refute her claim. Open your eyes. What’s your definition of propaganda?”

She has an argument- she has examples to back it up. It is then dismissed out of hand without any actual refutation- her (yeah, if they are hers) claims haven’t been countered with any kind of backed up argument thus far. I guess providing evidence for an argument is propaganda, but making unsupported claims are perfectly fine?

“Why should she produce an alternative? Well, if you blindly and unquestioningly believe every word she said, then she wouldn’t have to. If animal testing doesn’t work, then why would we need an alternative?”

I don’t, my current stance has been posted. We would need an alternative, sure- but you can’t discredit an argument that something is insufficient because no alternative is prepared.

71. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am

Bob: What PETA nuts?

Randall: Whenever I’m in NZ my brother and I go possum shooting (an animal testing topic is probably not the best place to say something like this haha) and I’ve learnt that when there’s an angry possum on the ground - one should remove oneself to a safe distance quickly. IMO possums sound like evil little demons with their hissing and cackling noises.

72. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 am

Hobolad:

One other point… you refer to my “insulting” behavior here again—Well I would like you to point out just what was “insulting” about my comment to Lleana—(or to anyone else here, except you). What was it, Hobo? My referring to her post as “propaganda?” If that’s insulting in your book, I’d suggest your skin is a tad too thin to be lurking around on the internet, and you find yourself a new hobby.

In short, further proof that this is all a personal beef of yours, in my regard. And my suggestion to you, therefore, is to get lost.

73. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 8:48 am

Hobolad:

A) Lleana’s post does NOT constitute an “argument” because it offers nothing more than a series of non-contextual bits and pieces and unsubstantiated statistics, and says NOTHING more. You can CALL that an argument if you like, but all it amounts to is MAYBE “proof” (too strong a word in this context) that animal testing is inefficient. That is ALL.

B) What you’re basically saying is that postings which copy and paste a lot of skewed anecdotes and/or statistics are more valid to you than postings which present an actual viewpoint in someone’s own words.

If that’s all you respect, then here:

From the website of an Oxford-based group, Pro-Test:

Myth: Animal testing is unreliable, because drugs have different effects in people and animals. The result is that drugs passed as safe in animals are found to have serious side effects in people.

“Medical experiments on animals have caused enormous damage and killed thousands. In the past 20 years thousands of drugs, successfully tested on animals have been withdrawn because of dangerous side effects on humans.”1
The Facts

Animal research is important in understanding diseases and developing ways to prevent, treat or cure them. Animal testing of potential medicines is also vital. But the claim that animal testing is responsible for drug side effects is illogical and shows a basic misunderstanding of the safety testing process.
If drugs pass extensive screening by test tube methods, they are then tested on animals. These tests give valuable information about how the drug reacts in the living body, and often show up previously unpredicted side effects. For instance, the route of administration is important: a drug given by mouth may be altered by digestion, becoming less effective or more toxic. This is the sort of problem that will not be apparent from test tube results, but will show up in animal tests.

The animal tests are designed to reveal major undesirable effects such as liver damage, raised blood pressure, nerve damage, or damage to the foetus. The results of the animal studies will give a strong indication of what the effects in people are likely to be. It is obviously important, and is required by law, to find out about potential problems before drugs are given to human volunteers and patients in clinical trials.

Human clinical trials will involve testing a potential drug on 3-5,000 human volunteers and patients. If a side effect (affecting say 1 in 10,000 patients) shows up only after this stage, then it is difficult to see how it could have been spotted before. This was the case with Eraldin, which, in clinical trials in over 2,000 patients, produced only constipation in 44 patients - the most serious side effect found. It was only after it had been prescribed hundreds of thousands of times that this effect was discovered. It makes no sense to blame the animal tests for rare side effects, after a drug has been tested on cells and tissues, in animals, in people, and after it has been used by many thousands of patients.

Figures are often quoted by animal rights sympathisers on drug induced deaths or hospitalisation due to drug side effects. These are highly exaggerated and misleading. Most of these deaths are not caused by normal doses of drugs, but are in fact due to accidental or deliberate overdose.2

The number of drugs withdrawn from the market is also consistently overstated by animal rights activists, who often refer glibly to “an endless list”. In fact, of the 2,000 types of drugs on the market, since 1961 less than 40 have been withdrawn in the UK, US, France or Germany due to serious side effects. This indicates a success rate of at least 98% for drug testing procedures. In fact, only 10 of these drugs have been withdrawn in all four countries.3

One of the longest lists of drugs withdrawn, allegedly due to side effects somehow caused by animal testing, has been drawn up by Vernon Coleman in his book Betrayal of Trust. A columnist for The People, Coleman is well-known for his opposition to animal experiments. He claims to list the names of 85 “thoroughly tested drugs which had to be withdrawn”.4 In fact 84 drugs are listed as withdrawn between 1961 and 1993. This should be revised to 83, since both Ticrinafen and Tienilic acid are included although they are the same drug.

Creating a list of drugs withdrawn is no easy task. Of the 83 on Coleman’s list only 46 were withdrawn from the UK market. The others were either never marketed here or were not in fact withdrawn. If a drug is withdrawn in one country then other authorities do not necessarily follow suit. It is not surprising that medical opinion in different countries varies as to the need for withdrawal. For example, France, but not the UK and USA, withdrew the powerful antibiotic chloramphenicol from the market in 1978 (after 28 years) because of its action in causing death due to aplastic anaemia in a few, susceptible individuals.

Ignoring the problems of creating a single list of drugs withdrawn from any country, Coleman’s list certainly does not provide evidence that animal experimentation is responsible for toxicity observed in clinical use. Fourteen drugs on the list were withdrawn at least partly because of adverse results from ongoing animal toxicity tests (usually long-term carcinogenic tests, occasionally teratogenic studies). Sixteen drugs included had been in long-term use (15-103 years) and were marketed before animal toxicity tests became a routine requirement. A further 19 were withdrawn due to factors not relevant to the basic investigation of possible toxicity in animals. These factors include a toxic interaction with other drugs or a constituent of the diet (for example the monoamineoxidase inhibitors), or because they were produced in a novel formulation that was not retested (Indomethacin-R or Osmosin for example). Finally, some drugs were withdrawn as a result of fraudulent research or suppression of data (apparently the case for Doxylamine succinate - Debendox).

Making allowances for overlap, ie some drugs falling in to two or more categories, 37 drugs out of the original 83 were withdrawn because of unforeseen toxicity during clinical use. An average of 1.2 per year throughout the US, UK, France and Germany.

The commonest myths about so called species differences and drug side effects relate to penicillin and thalidomide. Other myths in circulation relate to the effects of acetylcholine, chloroform, clioquinol (Enterovioform), corticosteroids, digitalis, fialuridine, Flosint (indoprofen), isoprenaline, methotrexate, morphine, triparanol.

References
Braim M (1994) Letter to Redditch Observer June 24th
Jick H (1974) Drugs - Remarkably Nontoxic New England J Med, 291,824-828
Spriet-Pourra C & Auriche M (1994) Drug Withdrawal from Sale. 2nd edition. PJB Publications Ltd (Scrip Report)
Coleman V (1994) Betrayal of Trust. European Medical Journal

74. Hobolad - August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am

“I find it amusing (and VERY telling) that the only people I ever hear this sort of criticism from (i.e. the one you’re leveling at me) are those with whom I’ve had strong disagreements in the past (as I believe you and I have had). Interesting, also, that you feel it SO important to chastise me that you’re taking this off-topic to this regard, EVEN THOUGH you and I evidently agree on the issue at hand!”

I’ve been on the recieving end of your insulting posting style and sense of superiority in the past, sure. Who hasn’t that disagrees with you on even the most minor thing? As far as I’m concerned, the people who have been on the recieving end have as much right to call you up on it as anyone else.

It is off-topic- but I’m not sure when a list would come up where it’s on topic. This is an issue that’s almost come up and a lot of lists, this is just me saying what I think so I won’t have to for every list you consider yourself an expert on in the future. On big lump of off-topicness now in exchange for less in the future.

“Another one I ALWAYS hear from the resentful FEW here who have a bone to pick with me, such as you–that I’ve somehow fooled and cowed tons of other people here on this site into bowing and scraping to me as some kind of intellectual superior. A) I happen to believe most of the people here are way smarter than that, Hobolad, and B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic asshole you portray me as, that I would have been found out long ago and laughed and mocked off this site and probably even barred from it by Jamie. You want to see me as nothing more than a gigantic blowhard because you’ve disliked what I’ve had to say at times. You don’t like my prose style and find me insulting. I say to each their own, but I DO note that we’ve disagreed in the past and I think it’s clear you have a personal beef against me. I ALSO NOTE THAT *YOU* ATTACKED *ME* FIRST HERE on this thread–a snide and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY commentary on what I’d written to *someone else.* If you feel you’re right about me, Hobolad, then why not just leave it allow others to see it for themselves? But it seems to me that you have some NEED to attack me and felt it necessary to call me out. Paints you in a worse picture here, in my opinion.”

If I’d have made that comment based on this topic alone- then yes, I’d be more in the wrong. I just got sick of your bullying posting style, I guess- and this topic is a minor example of the behaviour you’ve displayed over many lists. You feel the need to react to disagreeing opinions with disrespectful, bullying comments and I felt the need to comment on it, finally. What more can I say.

75. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am

Hobolad:

The point to the above is that it’s EASY to go around cutting and pasting crap on this site or any other. I try to refrain from doing so usually; Lleana did not. But in any case it does NOT constitute an argument–at least not a superior one. (Superior, that is, to simply stating one’s beliefs openly, with one’s reasons for having those beliefs–which I did).

76. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am

HOBOLAD:

Here you go. http://www.amprogress.org/site.....ONDERS.htm

Just as one sided as Lleana’s wouldn’t you say? And just as researched (it took me a minute to find it, copy it, and paste it here). But a complete refutation of her point. Happy?

Of course, I’m a little biased on this subject. My 3 week old niece is struggling to recover from an open heart surgery that was first tested on animals. I’d smash the heads of a thousand fucking rats with a roofing hammer if it meant giving her a 1% better chance of making it to see her 1 month birthday.

77. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am

Randall:

You’re always frigging 5 minutes ahead of me. And probably better looking.

78. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am

From Randall’s ‘cut and paste’ information:

“Most of these deaths are not caused by normal doses of drugs, but are in fact due to accidental or deliberate overdose.”

Interesting no? Your doctor’s competence in prescribing drugs (and the administration of them by the pharmacist or nurse) is probably a bigger influence on whether you are going to live or die than whether the drug was tested on an animal.

Are those facts you (Randall I mean) quoted current? The references are all pre-1995.

79. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am

Thanks for the link Logar and I hope your little niece makes it!

80. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am

Hobolad:

“I’ve been on the recieving end of your insulting posting style and sense of superiority in the past, sure. Who hasn’t that disagrees with you on even the most minor thing?”

More bullshit hyperbole. I’ve argued with a few people here, yes. But it’s YOUR individual perception that I conduct myself in some kind of unseemly fashion–not everyone’s. No doubt you’d find three or four people who’d agree with you–but I’d bet the house and the car and the boat that I’d find many times MORE people who’d DISAGREE with you and who feel I’ve contributed a lot to this site–in information, intellectual debate, and if nothing else, flat-out entertainment. Again, if I were the huge asshole you paint me as, I’d have been long-gone from here, as this site has, in the past, made a point of ejecting the truly obnoxious.

“As far as I’m concerned, the people who have been on the recieving end have as much right to call you up on it as anyone else.”

The point is that no one ever does, except the very rare disgruntled few, such as yourself–who clearly has a personal bone to pick with me. And to such an extent that you felt it worthy to cause this protracted argument between us–*by attacking me FIRST*–and to continue it, taking things more and more off-topic.

“It is off-topic- but I’m not sure when a list would come up where it’s on topic.”

How about addressing it in the forums? Or taking your complaint to Jamie? Either or both would be more appropriate. I suspect you have done neither because, again, this is simply a personal thing with you and you know that in REAL terms you haven’t a leg to stand on.

“This is an issue that’s almost come up and a lot of lists, this is just me saying what I think so I won’t have to for every list you consider yourself an expert on in the future. On big lump of off-topicness now in exchange for less in the future.”

Well you’ve lost your bargain, then, because I can assure you that no amount of harassment by the likes of you is going to change my attitude or the way I conduct myself on this site. Again, if it were a generally-held attitude towards me, I wouldn’t be here. The fact is that a small minority who don’t like me and don’t like what I have to say–you among them–aren’t going to scare me off. If the day comes when I’m asked to leave, I’ll go quietly–but at present I’m pretty confident that day isn’t coming.

“If I’d have made that comment based on this topic alone- then yes, I’d be more in the wrong. I just got sick of your bullying posting style, I guess- and this topic is a minor example of the behaviour you’ve displayed over many lists. You feel the need to react to disagreeing opinions with disrespectful, bullying comments and I felt the need to comment on it, finally. What more can I say.”

Well you’ve said your piece on this issue… several times now. How about shutting up about it and moving on? That’s my suggestion. This isn’t the place for your personal griping about me. If collective opinion here agrees with you, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. If it doesn’t, then you’ve said what you had to say and can shut up now.

81. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am

“How about addressing it in the forums?”

What a good idea - why don’t one of you (Randall/Holobad) take the initiative and make any subsequent comments (that aren’t related to the topic) somewhere else? It’s a bit of a pain having such enormous blocks of text on the page that aren’t relevant to the topic. Thanks guys

82. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Logar:

“You’re always frigging 5 minutes ahead of me. And probably better looking.”

Modesty should forbid me answering this, but yes, I’m a handsome son of a bitch.

No no, Logar–forgive me jumping ahead of you. I was simply riled up and had to make a quick point. Do go on with what you were doing. My original intention was simply to come in here, say what I had to say, respond to Lleana quickly, and move on with the peaceful enjoyment of my life as a citizen. Sadly some people–as ever–gotta f**k that up and get me mad. I’m sorry if, in my mad rush to defend myself, I knocked you aside. If anything was damaged or needs dry cleaning as a result, I’ll pay for it.

83. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am

Tempyra:

“Are those facts you (Randall I mean) quoted current? The references are all pre-1995.”

The site in question is here:
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/p.....oolbarID=8

I simply picked it at random (somewhat–I’ve heard of this group before but it popped up first when I did a search, and knowing them to be reputable–at least from what I know–I selected them).

84. segue - August 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am

Thank you to everyone who responded with such kindness to my post. To those of you who are against animal testing under all conditions, reread, or read, my original post to see why some of us owe our lives to animal testing.
Vera, you’re too kind, but I thank you.
Anon, thank you as well; I need some clarification on a couple of off-topic comments.
Randall, as usual, you come in with a common sense argument and get immediately attacked. I’m sorry.

85. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am

Logar:

I’m sorry, I hadn’t read your previous post, about your niece. Didn’t mean to be flippant in light of this… I do hope your niece is okay and everything comes out well.

86. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am

Nah, Randall. I don’t feel knocked aside. I’ve just been “scooped” is all. A little slow on the draw. My computer keeps crashing, and work keeps getting in my way, the bastards.

I think we both agree that idiocy should never go unconfronted. Fire away.

87. Anne O’Nemus - August 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am

Hell yes it is necessary. As a scientist myself I know it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Many people counter with silly sentimental nonquestions such as, well if we really need to test on animals then that means we don’t know enough about the subject matter and shouldn’t be prescribing it to humans or animals… come on, we have barely touched the tip of the gargantuan iceberg which is undiscovered scientific knowledge. This is whereby we derive our knowledge, through trial and error. How else do simpletons expect us to approach the truth without scientific experimentation?? Should millions die so a few imbeciles can feel better about themselves and mice? Ridiculous and contrary to a true humanist spirit.

88. Dan - August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am

I think that animal testing should be evaluated purely on the scientific merits.

If, and only if, the testing is required, cannot be done any other way, and produces valid results that are critical to human welfare, then I can see a good reason.

Unfortunately in many cases, the results aren’t all that valid. Differences in physiology, differences in exposure vectors, in testing protocol can all mean that the results don’t accurately translate to humans.

To top that off, for drug testing animal tests don’t turn up psychological or chronic use issues: It’s hard to tell if a rat has gotten suicidal or is experiencing sexual side effects, or what the effects might be of using the drug over the years.

On the other hand, however, there are some things that they do translate well to, and have had a definite positive effect on our understanding of the world and the quality of human life. While it wasn’t destructive testing that lead to it, don’t forget that entire fields of psychology have come from animal experiments.

89. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Anne O’Nemus:

“How else do simpletons expect us to approach the truth without scientific experimentation?? Should millions die so a few imbeciles can feel better about themselves and mice?”

Isn’t that being a bit melodramatic for a scientist?

90. Tempyra - August 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am

Dan: The Milgram experiment with the puppy springs to mind.

91. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Thanks guys. Every prayer/kind thought counts. I only bring it up to explain my bias… Kind of hard for me the think objectively on the subject. It likely shaded my posts on the abortion page as well.

92. logar - August 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am

Gotta love her name though. I’ve considered using “Dick O’Normus” as my internet handle, but that’s too close to my real name…

93. Randall - August 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am

If anyone’s interested, here’s the list of myths and facts about animal testing, from the previously mentioned website which I quoted:

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/p....._PageID=48

Note that this is just one site of many.

The fact is that in scientific terms, the weight of evidence is heavily on the side of continued animal testing. There are no viable alternatives, and there is scant objective evidence to support the view that such testing is ineffective or pointless.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant about animal testing, ensuring that rules and laws are followed and that animals are properly cared for and respected.

But it also does bring us, again, into a situation where we must face another of life’s unpleasant facts–that to further our knowledge and our own survivability, we *must* do this (experiment on animals).

94. Phil - August 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am

sticks & stones

95. SlickWilly - August 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Lleana: Of the many things that piss me off (and as the regular LVers around here know, thats a many with a capital “M”), plaigirism is among the more arrogant and reprehensible. It means you are too dumb to do the research on your own, or too lazy to credit the person who wasn’t too dumb. I expect we will not be seeing you around here anymore, and I hope you will have the good sense to act more appropriately when you undoubtedly come back with a different screenname.

That being said, that nice little piece you posted (which, as Randall said, is nothing but propaganda) is both intentionally misleading and narrow-sighted. A blanket statement like “…animal experiments do not work and kill more people than they help…” is grossly negligent of the facts and unacceptably irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is, it would be nice for people like you who echo the sentiments of the article you stole if animal testing were as cut-and-dried as pharamceuticals and comestics. The bigger picture is far more wide-spread and complicated as you make it out to be. Animal testing falls into two categories: pure research and applied research. Pharmaceuticals and comestics fall under the latter category but by no means constitute it, and you fail to mention the former entirely.

Pure research is an umbrella term that covers experimentation that focuses largely on developmental biology, study of genetics, and studies of evolutionary mechanisms. It is because of genetic research on rats, mice and guinea pigs that we have a fuller understanding of how genes and DNA relates to a broad range of topics, from developmental retardation (that is, how mutations in certain genes can cause crippling phenotypic defects) to the physiology of behavior to the principles of genetic evolution. Studies in pure research have contributed as much to human medical science as pharmaceutical testing and other applied areas, if not more.

Applied research includes pharmaceutical testing, but does not end with it. Borrowing from principles learned in pure research, applied research also includes a focus on genetic modification to study the genetic basis of all manner of mental and physical disorders and diseases. To that point, applied research also included the study of naturally occuring diseases in order to formulate a diagnosis for the way in w