Markus

Fantastic! Have just been discussing this elsewhere.

brumdaisy

I think you need to get your facts straight, as i said in another thread animal testing doesnt exist because its a necessity, it exists because its the cheapest option.

Its also proven to be unreliable. Just try google - there are hundreds if not thousands of pages on this.

Markus

If it's so unreliable then why is it used as a method of testing? What alternatives are there which would be more expensive?

brumdaisy

ummm not sure how to put a link up to one of my own posts... so do a search if u want to...

Markus

Look at the right hand side of your post, you'll see a number, that's the post number, click on it and it will display just that post. Copy the URL in the address bar of your browser and then paste it in here

OllyK

Cool if there's loads of stuff on google can you post me a link to a comparative drug study where they compare the results from an animal test to another method and then how that compared the to human trial results. Cheers.

Christ

How about all the Rapists, Murderers, Terrorists and Child Offenders in prison?? Leave all the poor animals out of it....

Chris

brumdaisy

and would u like some milk chocolate digestives with your cup of tea sir?

find it yer self

brumdaisy

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showpost....0&postcount=10

edited: cheers markus i wondered how to do that

Lee247

Good comment

Markus

Oh I agree totally on that, nothing would be more pleasant than to see some pedophile being experimented on. The only downside would be if it was for something which would benefit us all, as it would mean the scum had indirectly caused something good to happen. Then again, maybe they could just use them to test out new biological weapons, rather than drugs that would aid us.

Christ

Surely thats a good thing???

ninjacost

Don't forget the animal rights fanatics

Son of Quatto

I'm an animal lover myself but not to the extreme of some of these animal rights fanatics YET having tests on monkeys and dogs where the poor things are left to rot in their own filth in cages and are mutilated beyond reason then YES I do object.

There has to be a more humane way of doing it. WTF I can't understand is the government were obsessed with banning fox hunting yet turn a blind eye to animal testing.

As someone has said above test it on the real vermin of the world albeit the pondlife of our society.

cookstar

iTrader: (6)

r32

If its going to be done it should be done properly with the Animals being well cared for. I know a couple of friends one works in a local University and they do some testing, and another works for a large drug company which is local, they both tell me that their animals are well cared for kept clean, kept well fed and the carers love their charges. So I dont know where these bad labs are, seems like if the animals are not 100% then then any trial results would not be reliable

Diablo

Few points here

1)Markus - stop being a ****

2)There is a very fine line between medical research and abuse - who decides?

3)Quite often successful tests on animals produce drugs that don't work or are actually harmful to humans

4)Why not use all the worst offending criminals? Societies morals and ethics are so screwed up. So its ok to inflict pain and suffering on an innocent animal, but not on a child rapist??

5)How relevant is religion to all this? The catholic faith teaches that animals don't have "souls" for instance.

6)Hopefully, with ****** blair signing up to this and voicing his public approval, soemone from the ALF will bomb his **** and give us all peace at last....

Son of Quatto

'So I dont know where these bad labs are, seems like if the animals are not 100% then then any trial results would not be reliable'

the animals might be 100% prior to testing but after I hardly think their health is an issue. I know the animal rights activists get off on people's emotions but seeing pictures of animals mutilated in their cages waiting in misery for the next test is repulsive to say the least. The people doing these tests obviously have no ethics towards the creatures they are experimenting on. Could you drink down the pub with them???

BTW anyone who thinks I'm animal rights I happen to disagree with the fox hunting ban. Why? Fox's will always be killed by farmers etc and the hounds will most of time do it quickly. If the fox isn't hunted it will grow in numbers and will be shot, snared or poisoned which are far worse. Pity the townies don't see it that way but next time you wonder why your pet cat is missing have a thought for the fox!!!

Diablo has hit the nail on the head. We can quite happily inflict suffering on some innocent animal YET we'll bend hand over foot to help the low-life beyond salvation in prison. Test it on them and do the tax-payer a huge favour.

645

Daisy - yes, you may have found many examples of bad practice and cruelty- and I don't dispute them. However, you are clearly poorly educated in this matter. There are indeed alternatives to some animal testing, including computer simulation software and testing on human tissue samples, grown in a lab. However, at present, there is no substitute for animal testing. I wish there were, and I'm sure so do many UK scientists.

I guess from your posts that your not from a scientific background. Things are never black and white and I suggest you equip yourself with the other side of the argument, before posting further. We can all find grotesque pictures and stories on the web about cruel animal testing - I think it's abhorent, just as much as you do I can assure you. However, you need to look at the good people doing good work, for the benefit of mankind.

Just remember, a loved one (or indeed you) may need specialist drugs one day, drugs that could never have been allowed onto the market without first being tested on animals. I don't like the idea any more than you, but it's currently a fact of life.

All you and similarly minded people are doing is pushing research away from responsible research institutions in the UK and US towards irresponsible countries like China, where I can assume you they don't give two hoots about animal rights, and you'll have a cat in hells chance of influencing them.

Let's keep it in this country, but make sure we minimise animal suffering as much as we practically can, whilst continuing research to find news ways of testing drugs - with the hope that one day we can eliminate it.

OllyK

Ahh - so there aren't any, thought so.

Diablo

645,

Whether anyone fully understands the scientific fact or not is, largely, irrelevant here.

Nor is it about education.

The question is one of morality, not science, and how one is able to reconcile the effects upon the welfare of the animals upon which the tests are carried out against the benefits those tests may produce in terms of developing new drugs, etc.

Its not a clear cut case for many people. Regardless of the science involved there will be varying degrees of suffering involved, even for those animals upon which testing is carried out within the current regulations, in nice clean cages and by people who believe they are doing it for the benefit of mankind.

I am not a perticularly religious person, but I strongly believe that animals were not just put on this planet to be used and abused by humans "for the benefit of mankind" or otherwise. To to assume they were is, along with the rest of mankind's failings, to demonstrate an arrogance beyond bounds that may, ultimately, destroy life on this planet as we know it.

Science? An easy excuse - this is about a larger moral picture.

645

Diablo - It's an easy excuse to ignore science, and not equip yourself with the full facts of the argument. You clearly understand little about what ACTUALLY goes on in a reputable research establishment. I do. I suggest you do a little more research before you continue.

And god forbid you or your family need a drug that's been tested on animals - please tell me you wouldn't pass up the chance to survive by taking such a drug?...because if your argument holds water, you'd only take non-animal tested drugs, right?

Diablo

Dude,

Whether I would, or would not use such a drug or drugs is a matter for me to reconcile based upon my own morals. Its something I have to deal with. What I have posted is not an "argument", it is statement that the issue is one of morality, not science.

Speaking generally, just because I am a party to something, doesn't mean I have to like it.

As for "the full facts of the argument"...sigh.....

It's not rocket science.

The "upside" of testing is the wellbeing benefit to the human race, yes?

For some, however, that's not enough. But you have demonstrated that you can't understand that, or, more importantly, accept that some people will have a different opinion than you - as is their absolute right - and how dare you presume to be so arrogant as to deny anyone that right.

Ok, so enlighten me and answer this simple question as one who says he has such understanding:-

Can you confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no suffering experienced by the animals upon which testing is carried out in the reputable research establishments ?

I await your answer with interest.

fitzscoob

No one found this amusing?

Too much of a sensitive topic to have any humour here?

Geezer

I don't see why people consider it immoral to test drugs on animals, or use their fur for coats, but do not consider it immoral to eat them. (Some do I admit, but it is a minority).

Exploitation of animals is either agreeable or not, how they are exploited is irrelevant!

It is how the planet works, the stonger animals exploit the 'weaker' ones, or ones that will benefit them. Lions eat zebras, bears eat fish, sharks eat anything etc. Ants actually use 'slave labour' of a sort. The thought of cruelty of morals does enter into the equation, it is natural to exploit other species for your own benefit.

Geezer

645

"Dude" - you've got me all wrong, but hey, to support your own arguments, you like to characature people and back them into a corner. Why don't you read my posts properly.

I said:

"Let's keep it in this country, but make sure we minimise animal suffering as much as we practically can, whilst continuing research to find news ways of testing drugs - with the hope that one day we can eliminate it."

The key work being minimise.

I love the way you call me arrogant. Take a look at your own posts, laddy boy.

Answer me this one, which I posted before, but which you so quickly overlooked:

"All you and similarly minded people are doing is pushing research away from responsible research institutions in the UK and US towards irresponsible countries like China, where I can assume you they don't give two hoots about animal rights, and you'll have a cat in hells chance of influencing them." Do you agree?

I don't want animals hurt, I really don't. But with our current state of knowledge and expertise, we don't have a viable and safe alternative for testing some drugs. I'm afraid you just can't argue with that (oh, but you will, because you don't understand drug testing? or do you? after all it's not "rocket science"!!! - no, it's a damn site more complex!!!).

You are right not to like animal testing. I accept fully your position on this one - it's your right. However, it is not acceptable to support terrorist acts - which I'm sure you don't. Which is what the original poster and the petition is all about.

Son of Quatto

'The "upside" of testing is the wellbeing benefit to the human race, yes?'

In that case wtf about the millionsof people straving in third world nations. Great use animal testing is for them when all they want is a bellyful of rice. Its all about money. Drugs companies such as glaxo want profit and couldn't give 2 hoots about what they do to get it.

And lol Fitzscoob yes I'm an animal lover but don't shake one out to Animal Farm when the misses has gone to bed

brumdaisy

645 you and your patronising attitude can kiss my ****. So far as my 'background' is concerned, it comprises of growing up in the shadow of HLS in Cambridgeshire - I assume with your worldly knowledge you know what this is.

Are telling everyone on here that they are not entitled to, or capable of reaching an informed point of view without having a bloody Masters in the subject?

Get over yourself and I suggest that everyone else on here signs up for their 'scooby' doctorate before they make a single post

Geezer

You could live in the shadow of Portan Down, doesn't mean you know what goes on in there................

Geezer