Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Animal testing,do you agree to it?

  • 20-08-2011 5:10pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭


    Its hard to know where to stand on this one.The web is full of sites that are against it,but there are some solid arguments that basically says that it is neccesary to develop new drugs and testing on animals paves the way and allows develpment of the drug for human consumption.

    There are alot of cosmetic companies that test on animals, but there are also alot that dont.

    I feel that it i cruel and shouldnt be banned worldwide, But what if a close family member/friend, or even yourself were to become terminally ill? Would i still take ths stance knowing that the drugs could have been developed if animal testing was allowed? This is the argument.

    There are plenty of places on the web to look furhter ino this, and ive only started to take notice of it so i am not well informed of this subjet yet.

    Are you against it or for it?


«1

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    I do not agree with it in very most cases. There are very rare exceptions.

    If its for make-up and such more luxury/personal items - most definitely not!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭chin_grin


    Tell ya they look absolutely fabulous afterwards. :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 657 ✭✭✭Sooopie


    no, surely by now technology is advanced enough to not need to resort to it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    its how the inevitable zombie outbreak will begin, wait and see


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Companies That Still Test on Animals (and associated brands):

    Alcon Labs
    Allergan, Inc.
    Answer
    Arm & Hammer
    ArmorAll
    Arrid
    Axe
    Aziza
    Bain de Soleil
    Ban Roll-on
    Banana Boat
    Bausch & Lomb
    Benckiser
    BenGay
    Biotherm
    Block Drug Co. Inc.
    Bounty
    Boyle-Midway
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
    Cacherel
    Cargill
    Carpet Fresh
    Carter-Wallace
    Chesebrough-Ponds
    Church & Dwight
    Clarion
    Clairol
    Clear Choice
    Clorox
    Commerce Drug Co.
    Consumer Value Stores
    Coppertone
    Coty
    Cover Girl
    Crest
    Dana Perfumes
    Dawn
    Del Laboratories
    Desitin
    Dial Corporation
    Diversey
    Dove
    Dow Brands
    Drackett Products Co.
    Drano
    EcoLab
    Eli Lilly & Co.
    El Sanofi Inc.
    Elizabeth Arden
    Erno Laszlo
    Faberge
    Fantastik
    Fendi
    Final Net
    Finesse
    First Response
    Flame Glow
    Garnier
    Giorgio Armani
    Givaudan-Roure
    Glade
    Glass Plus
    Helena Rubinstein
    Helene Curtis Industries
    Huggies
    ISO
    Ivory
    Jhirmack
    Johnson & Johnson
    Johnson Products Co.
    Jovan
    Kaboom
    Keri
    Kimberly-Clark Corp
    Kiwi Brands
    Kleenex
    Lady's Choice
    Lancaster
    Lancome
    Lava
    Lever Brothers
    Lipton
    Listerine
    L'Oreal USA
    Lubriderm
    Lux
    Lysol
    Matrix Essentials
    Max Factor
    Maybelline
    Mead
    Mop & Glo
    Nair
    Naturelle
    Neutrogena
    Neutron Industries, Inc.
    Olean
    Orange Glo
    Oscar de la Renta
    OxiClean
    Pantene
    Parfums International
    Pearl Drops
    Pennex
    Pfizer, Inc.
    Pine-Sol
    Plax
    Playtex Corporation
    Pledge
    Polident
    Ponds
    Post-It
    Prestige Brands
    Prince Matchabelli
    Proctor & Gamble Co.
    Quintessence
    Raid
    Ralph Lauren Fragrances
    Reckitt Benckiser
    Redken
    Resolve
    Richardson-Vicks
    Sally Beauty Supply
    Sally Hansen
    Sanofi
    SC Johnson & Son
    Schering-Plough
    Scotch
    Scott Paper Co.
    Scrub Free
    Sensodyne
    Signal
    SmithKline Beecham
    Snobal
    SoftSheen
    S.O.S.
    Stanhome Inc.
    Sterling Drug
    Suave
    Sun Star
    Sunsilk
    TCB Naturals
    Tegrin
    3M
    Tide
    Tilex
    Trojan
    Truvia
    Unilever
    Vaseline
    Vichy
    Vidal Sassoon
    Visine
    Vivid
    Warner-Lambert
    Westwood Pharmaceuticals
    White Shoulders
    Whitehall Laboratories
    Windex
    Woolite
    LAST UPDATED ON DECEMBER 29, 2010.

    More than you'd think.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    All the animal testing in the world for make-up and the likes of Paris Hilton, Jordan and others, still look like skanks!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭kildare.17hmr


    no problem with it for drugs


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Not to cute animals. Ugly ones are fair game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭raveni


    It's not so easy to simply be either against it or for it I believe. I would be completely against cosmetics testing (i.e. make-up, etc) but as you said what if someone you know became very ill, and the drug(s) that were saving/could save their life had only been made available/fastracked to being available through testing on animals, in that case I would be for it if it was not possible/too dangerous to test on humans. But I don't really know enough about the area to be sure, you hear some awful stories.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,655 ✭✭✭El Inho


    like ... dog shampoo on dogs...

    thats cool.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,199 ✭✭✭CardBordWindow


    Animal testing is cruel! They can't cope with the pressure, panic and then can't think of the right answer!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    For cancer treatments and life saving shit I'm okay with it.

    I love a minced steak burger me and a bacon sandwich and a pair of good runners on my feet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    I personally don't have a problem with animals being used if by doing so the human race is better for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    against


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    stovelid wrote: »
    Not to cute animals. Ugly ones are fair game.
    Roight! Thats Jordan then up for testing next!
    Now where did I put the hog-tying rope and the anal probe! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Biggins wrote: »
    Roight! Thats Jordan then up for testing next!
    Now where did I put the hog-tying rope and the anal probe! :D

    :pac:

    On a serious note, I don't know enough about it to know if it's essential for drugs and whatnot. If it is, then reluctantly yes if it saves human lives.

    No for things like cosmetics obviously.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,265 ✭✭✭..Brian..


    For the research and development of medicinal drugs and products ... ok but only if all other avenues for testing are exhausted first.

    For anything cosmetic / make up orientated, absolutely not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    50 disasters of animal testing
    50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
    From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement

    Click here for a 33 fact summary of why animal testing does not work

    1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]

    2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

    3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

    4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]

    5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals.

    6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans.

    7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.

    8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.

    9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.

    10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

    11.Combined heart lung transplants were also "perfected" on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the
    operation.[14]

    12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

    13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.

    14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.

    15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.

    16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.

    17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths.

    18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans.


    19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health.

    20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.

    21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

    22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

    23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

    24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

    25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.

    26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22]
    [23][24][25][26]

    27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

    28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] "...excellent safety profile. No ...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species."

    29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

    30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

    31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]

    32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

    33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

    34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]

    35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]

    36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]

    37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.

    38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant.

    39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders.

    40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities."[47]

    41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

    42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]

    43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

    44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]

    45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: "How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."

    46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

    47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result.

    48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

    49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

    50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans.

    Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment.

    ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

    HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES
    http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_10_50-disasters-of-animal-testing
    Does animal testing help human medicine?

    33 facts to consider.

    1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.

    2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25% of the time."

    3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%

    4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

    5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.

    6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.

    7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin."

    8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.

    9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.

    10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.

    11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.

    12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.

    13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.

    14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.

    15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.

    16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.

    17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment.

    18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.

    19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

    20) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.

    21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.

    22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.

    23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.

    24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.

    25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.

    26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.

    27) The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia."

    28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed.

    29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.

    30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.

    31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.

    32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.

    33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."

    http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_8


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,582 ✭✭✭✭kowloon




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 657 ✭✭✭Sooopie


    TheZohan wrote: »
    More than you'd think.


    am glad to see Benefit isn't on that list


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Agreed for drug testing but not for cosmetic purposes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    stovelid wrote: »
    Right now, I'd kill a gerbil for a summary.

    a snack would be a more logical reason to kill the poor thing


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Absurdum wrote: »
    a snack would be a more logical reason to kill the poor thing

    I'll admit it. I briefly toyed with the idea of using a ham-ster pun there. I won't deny it. :o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Biggins wrote: »
    Roight! Thats Jordan then up for testing next!
    Now where did I put the hog-tying rope and the anal probe! :D

    Ya dirty fecker ya, Biggins!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Ya dirty fecker ya, Biggins!
    I'll pm you the pics! :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,582 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Ya dirty fecker ya, Biggins!

    He's not joking either, already looking for places to buy the probe on the Louth forum. :eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Sooopie wrote: »
    am glad to see Benefit isn't on that list

    It's not an exhaustive list.
    Q: Does Benefit use ingredients tested on animals?

    A: Benefit Cosmetics does not perform or allow animal testing on bulk or finished products.

    Looking at their company website it's clear that they do some animal testing, if they didn't that would simply have answered "No".

    edit:
    Q: Does Benefit use ingredients tested on animals?
    A: It is impossible to use only ingredients which have never been tested on animals at some point in the past.

    So they're just as bad.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    kowloon wrote: »
    He's not joking either, already looking for places to buy the probe on the Louth forum. :eek:
    :D

    Me old one is worn out! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Absurdum wrote: »

    Awesome, so you'd be volunteering for a phase one clinical trial for a brand new drug that had never been tested on another living thing then? Didn't think so..

    For the 50 things on that list there is about 10,000 things that have been discovered through animal testing. I'm not for unnecessary bunny torturing, but we have to be realistic about what can and can't be achieved with animal testing. It's very easy to take a simplistic view on these things but I know people alive today due to lifesaving drugs tested on animals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    yes ...here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.
    No sheep is safe then so? :D

    ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Kaneda_


    yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

    While i am against it mostly, i still enjoy my meat more that any other food besides snowballs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭Blondini


    Animal testing - no way.

    Fcuckers are renowned for releasing software with tons of bugs in them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Animals are used to test every single drug. If you dont agree with it, next time you're seriously ill refuse the medication.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭Don Juan DeMagoo


    yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry

    Why not use trolls as they have a slight few similarities to decent human beings. Then again any positive effect that testing has on them will probably be not for the benefit of humanity....

    animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

    They suck, I just asked my dog to make me an espresso and he is just sitting there licking his balls. Not good enough I say, with a recession going on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭Don Juan DeMagoo


    Awesome, so you'd be volunteering for a phase one clinical trial for a brand new drug that had never been tested on another living thing then? Didn't think so..

    Actually I am in favour of clinical testing on humans, sure why not. If they consent for beaucoup of money, sure i see no harm in it. Better use of them than sending off to war.
    However I could not allow the animals to be doing the testing on the humans, there is just too much bad blood there.

    Well there is my two cent, i hope that this has been of some help :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    All for it for medicine and related areas. Cosmetics, not really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,954 ✭✭✭✭Larianne


    TheZohan wrote: »
    [massive list..] More than you'd think.

    What do Kleenex do when testing animals? See if the tissues cut the bejaysis outta their noses?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Actually I am in favour of clinical testing on humans, sure why not. If they consent for beaucoup of money, sure i see no harm in it. Better use of them than sending off to war.
    However I could not allow the animals to be doing the testing on the humans, there is just too much bad blood there.

    Well there is my two cent, i hope that this has been of some help :D

    They do clinical testing for sure (and btw in Europe no one is allowed to be paid, you get expenses and that's it) but they also do the animal testing first to make sure it doesn't instantly cause toxicity.

    Animal studies are an important first step in any drug development. Unless we just get some poor Africans to do it, sher no-one cares about them.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would just like to point out that while companies like Body Shop do not participate in animal testing, the ingrediants they use in their products have been used in animal testing. It would not be possible for cosmetic companies to use such ingrediants without their effect on humans being known. So while they don't themselves take part in any animal testing, they do use a list of products that are known to be safe for humans, through the use of animal testing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    To put it in perspective, about 1 in 25 pharmaceuticals found in the lab make it to clinical trial stage. Of those that enter Phase 0, 1 in 8 make it to market. Keeping in mind it takes a long time to get to the clinical trial stage, it takes over 7 years alone to get approval in the major markets from the start of testing.

    The average cost to bring a drug to market is is excess of $1,000,000,000.

    Were you to ban animal testing, whether it is morally right or wrong, you would add significant amounts of time to the the process and increase this cost exponentially under the current regulatory process. This would have the effect of the cost of new treatments rocketing up and manufacturers abandoning the development of less "profitable" treatments as they will never see a return on their investment.

    As it stands, only those in the developed world can afford the latest treatment- removing animal testing would mean only a very small minority of people could afford treatment and fewer diseases would be treated.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Awesome, so you'd be volunteering for a phase one clinical trial for a brand new drug that had never been tested on another living thing then? Didn't think so..

    For the 50 things on that list there is about 10,000 things that have been discovered through animal testing. I'm not for unnecessary bunny torturing, but we have to be realistic about what can and can't be achieved with animal testing. It's very easy to take a simplistic view on these things but I know people alive today due to lifesaving drugs tested on animals.

    I agree totally with this. I'm completely for animal testing, however there are massive changes that need to be made. It is quite common for apes and chimps to be kept in tiny cages and never see sunlight. This is ridiculous - in what way does that benefit the testing being carried out? Also those against vivisection don't seem to want to believe what goes on it ethics meetings nor do they wish to believe that in research institutes, that if the need for the testing on animals cannot be proven to be neccessary then it does not get approval.

    I personally work with mammalian cells (no animals) but I infect them, I kill them, I do many, many things to them, but they are not an animal. What do they anti animal testing people think of this?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Flincher


    Against, they get all nervous and give silly answers.



    (I can't for the life of me remember where I heard that joke, if anyone remembers the stand-up/tv show please let me know).

    On a serious note, in terms of medication, its a necessary evil.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭Don Juan DeMagoo


    They do clinical testing for sure (and btw in Europe no one is allowed to be paid, you get expenses and that's it) but they also do the animal testing first to make sure it doesn't instantly cause toxicity.

    Unless we just get some poor Africans to do it, sher no-one cares about them.

    I do :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    The people that are against animal texting probably shouldn't take any drugs since the vast majority of drugs on the market have involved animals at some stage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I agree with animal testing for drug use but not for any of the family hominidae.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,221 ✭✭✭Greentopia


    bleg wrote: »
    The people that are against animal texting probably shouldn't take any drugs since the vast majority of drugs on the market have involved animals at some stage.

    How does this work having no opposable thumbs? :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,048 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    Medical animal research - yes.
    Cosmetic animal research - no.

    If there was any other way for coming up with ways to find new vaccines and cures for diseases, they'd do it, but there isn't. At the moment, animal testing is the best they've got. There simply aren't enough people willing to put themselves forward to have these vaccines tested on them. If you're so against it, then put yourself forward. It's not an ideal situation to be carrying out vivisection, but it really is the only option right now. If a better alternative arises, then it will be changed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

    Including other humans?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement