|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:30 am
Is testing on animals right? Is it the key to new medicine or the greatest horror to species that have nothing to do with our vaccines?
Pros?
Cons?
Here we shall debate *gasp* Vivisection!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:34 am
I think so, as long as it's for medicinial perposes. I mean, if it's for saving thousands of lives, like an HIV vaccine or the like, then definitely. Thousands of human lives or ten monkeys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:38 am
Emmanuela I think so, as long as it's for medicinial perposes. I mean, if it's for saving thousands of lives, like an HIV vaccine or the like, then definitely. Thousands of human lives or ten monkeys? Yes but to be honest we should take the responsibility to test them on our own species. And, also it sometimes ends in painful deaths for humans, as you cannot completely judge a drug on how it reacts with a different species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:43 am
Of cause. Like the malaria vaccination, out of the six scientists who tested it one almost died and two were the only ones on whom it worked although it had tested well on other animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:47 am
I support humane research organisations which work to find cures for human diseases without using animals. The truth of it is that vivisection doesn't help human medicine because of differences in the bodies and systems of humans and the animals used in testing. In fact, it has often proved misleading - drugs passed 'safe' for humans by animal tests have gone on to cause unforseen side effects in humans which harm and kill people. The first time a new drug is trully tested is when it is first given to human volunteers.
The way forward is to use modern methods like computer models, cell and tissue cultures and molecular studies rather than using the unreliable, unscientfic and barbaric methods of vivisection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:49 am
Badgerkin I support humane research organisations which work to find cures for human diseases without using animals. The truth of it is that vivisection doesn't help human medicine because of differences in the bodies and systems of humans and the animals used in testing. In fact, it has often proved misleading - drugs passed 'safe' for humans by animal tests have gone on to cause unforseen side effects in humans which harm and kill people. The first time a new drug is trully tested is when it is first given to human volunteers. The way forward is to use modern methods like computer models, cell and tissue cultures and molecular studies rather than using the unreliable, unscientfic and barbaric methods of vivisection. I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:54 am
Emmanuela Of cause. Like the malaria vaccination, out of the six scientists who tested it one almost died and two were the only ones on whom it worked although it had tested well on other animals. Also the drug Phalidomide (not sure if that's the right spelling!) That was tested on animals and found to be 'safe' without serious side effects. But when it was prescribed to pregnant women it caused babies to be born with terrible deformities like missing limbs sad - That was never predicted by the animal tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:55 am
Yes, that was awful. Did any of you hear about the Cambridge medical tests that almost killed those six people?
Kind of unnerving considering I'm taking part in a study for them tooXD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:56 am
Badgerkin Emmanuela Of cause. Like the malaria vaccination, out of the six scientists who tested it one almost died and two were the only ones on whom it worked although it had tested well on other animals. Also the drug Phalidomide (not sure if that's the right spelling!) That was tested on animals and found to be 'safe' without serious side effects. But when it was prescribed to pregnant women it caused babies to be born with terrible deformities like missing limbs sad - That was never predicted by the animal tests. That is so awful!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:07 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Aristocrat Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:21 pm
Vivisection can never ever be justified. It is a sick, unjust, pointless exploitation of our fellow animals. It causes both human and animal deaths also at the cost of futhering human scientific knowledge with it's backwards, outdated ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:03 pm
I think it is totally wrong and stupid. Not only is it inhumanly cruel, animals sometimes react differently to humans so it is pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:44 am
I think they should use those small rodents that are in too greater majority and will never die-out at the rate they breeed at. yup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:05 pm
Badgerkin I support humane research organisations which work to find cures for human diseases without using animals. The truth of it is that vivisection doesn't help human medicine because of differences in the bodies and systems of humans and the animals used in testing. In fact, it has often proved misleading - drugs passed 'safe' for humans by animal tests have gone on to cause unforseen side effects in humans which harm and kill people. The first time a new drug is trully tested is when it is first given to human volunteers. The way forward is to use modern methods like computer models, cell and tissue cultures and molecular studies rather than using the unreliable, unscientfic and barbaric methods of vivisection. Thank you, that was almost exactly what I was going to say. Another thing, testing on animals, is it the testing or the conditions under which they are tested that most people object to? The quantity of specimens used and thrown away is unacceptable. They dont see them or treat them as if they are living breathing creatures or animals with brains and instincts and many of the things that make us as humans. They see them as test subjects, units, disposable, and treat them accordingly. The conditions that the animals survive in are diplorable and numbing. I think that it is as much to oppose as the testing its self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
