“For years, protests by animal rights extremists have closed laboratories and intimidated scientists. Now, for the first time, a student campaign in favour of animal testing is gaining momentum. Laurie Pycroft, a 16-year-old student has launched a protest group, Pro-Test, in support of animal testing for medical research. 
He joins Richard & Judy, along with one of his fellow supporters Iain Simpson, to talk about the creation of their controversial protest group and living under constant fear of death threats.”This is the coverage on Channel4 website of their chat program on these two blokes.
Vivisection now seems to have found a new breed of defenders, grown out of the culture of anti-animal experimentation and sensitivity to animal rights that is presumably widespread, if not prevalent, in university campuses in the West, like Cambridge and Oxford.
The program only interviews people on one side of the debate (so much for media objectivity). Not one single voice for animals is raised during the show, except the indirect, absent voices of death threats allegedly coming from animal rightists.
Peter Singer on the Guardian online, on animal rights’ extremists’ violence:
“Is there a way out of the present deadlock? Some opponents of experiments on animals will be satisfied with nothing less than the immediate and total abolition of all animal research.
“In a society that continues to eat meat, however, that is an unrealistic goal. If people think that their enjoyment of the taste of animal flesh is sufficient reason to confine millions of animals in horrific factory farms, transport them to slaughterhouses and then kill them, why would they reject the use of relatively smaller numbers of animals in experiments designed to find cures for major diseases?”
This is rather frightening that someone would 'fight' for such horrific acts. I would like to know exactly what has been gained in vivisection. Going against Mother Nature is not right. It is not. Factory farms, vivisection, etc should not be allowed at all. I appreciated the posting and wish you well. Ben
ReplyDeleteSuch Horrific acts? Vaccines for disease, medicines, cosmetics, nutritional breakthroughs have all come through animal testing. Not only have humans had the benefit. Animal testing has been used to cure rabies. Animal testing should not be allowed? The alternatives wouldn't have allowed us to take the great steps. For example using cadavers to calculate how fast chemicals penetrate the skin, these results wouldn't be conclusive since the immune system is not active. Animal testing may be cruel to animals, yes; but the results have helped the whole world.
ReplyDeleteDear anonymous,
ReplyDeletewhat you are saying is a repetition of the grand claims made by animal experimenters and people who support this practice.
The problem with those claims is that they have never been validated. It's paradoxical that the people who are purported to be on the "scientific" side of the vivisection debate use so little in the way of scientific method and scientific argumentation. What they do is cite a collection of anecdotes, like some on your list, for which there is also a great amount of doubt in terms of historical accuracy. Scientific debates (any debates in fact) cannot be decided on the basis of anecdotes.
Vaccines, you say, for instance. But most historians of medicine concur that, when vaccines were introduced, all major infectious diseases had already almost completely been eradicated due to improved sanitation, diet and lifestyle.
In addition, nobody has ever shown the causal connection between animal experimentation and advances in medicine. Moreover, and more crucially, nobody has shown that advances in medical prevention and intervention could not have been achieved using non-animal methods of research to form and control hypotheses.
One thing is to claim something, and another to support it.
You say: "The alternatives wouldn't have allowed us to take the great steps. For example using cadavers to calculate how fast chemicals penetrate the skin, these results wouldn't be conclusive since the immune system is not active."
All that this shows is just that autopsies have limitations. Autopsies are not the only non-animal method, so your example has extremely less impact and fewer consequences than your original statement about alternatives. You cannot take the limitations of one alternative method, and transfer them to all non-animal methods.
To remain on your chosen subject of chemical testing, there are many alternatives, more reliable, more predictive, less expensive and more ethical than animal testing.
In this I happen to be in agreement with no less than the US National Research Council, which has released in June 2007 a report entitled “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: a Vision and a Strategy”.
I suggest that you look at the link above.
The report recommends that we replace animal testing of chemicals with alternative methods, in particular in vitro human cell lines in combination with computational methods and epidemiological studies.
The report says: “Advances in toxicogenomics, bioinformatics, systems biology, epigenetics, and computational toxicology could transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro methods that evaluate changes in biologic processes using cells, cell lines, or cellular components, preferably of human origin.”
This is a quote by Professor Charles R. Magel:
ReplyDeleteAsk the experimenters why they experiment on animals,
and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us."
Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to
experiment on animals, and the answer is:
"Because the animals are not like us."
Animal experimentation rests
on a logical contradiction.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION IS WRONG- IT SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING!!!!
anonymous, whom is for animal testing.
ReplyDeletenot only is there alternatives to animal testing like "of human and non-human animals" said but also, why are thousands of animal lives worth saving lives of humans? when it is our time to go, thats it. i would not ever use something that had been tested on animals to save my life as i would live in disgust of myself.
and what about for cosmetics? try to justify that.
People like you are disgusting.
This is horrific!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI know there have been gains for animal testing, but have you no compassion? Animal testing is WRONG! It is crulety people have an excuse for! Some people do treat animals humanely in testing sites but most do not. Why? THERE IS NO REASON!. There are many non animal ways to do this, we have millions of smart people on the world and yet animals still suffer....!
keisha said this is sad even thogh i agree with it, i can't bellieve these pictures show animals hurt i got to go .
ReplyDeletePeter Singer has been a tool for the promotion of vivisection for a long time. Google "ajudem nos singer rockefeller ruesch vivisection'. The perfect promoter of vivisection, one who is promoted through tv radio and newspapers and universities as the animal rights guru of the world , so if even singer supports vivisection it really must be needed right? no doubt pycroft, pro-test etc are also backed up by them and their media friends too.
ReplyDeleteto 'anonymous' a l,ist of claims does not make for truth see curedisease. net vivisectionresearch. ca health. org. nz pcrm. org for some truth
In my opinon animal testing has to stop as you can see most of the animals that are used in testing are bred just for testing but many other come from the pound.
ReplyDeletewill you be able to give up your life for a pill scientist dont even know it works? With having tons of side effects that might take your life. No, so why stop animal testing??? As long as its not on you its fine!
ReplyDeleteAlbert Sabin had to say..."... prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." Sabin, Albert, MD statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48. A 29 year delay in fact.
ReplyDeleteMedicines; according to the US FDA 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products"
Cosmetics; # "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
# "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)
nutrition; this is a new claim even from supporters of vivisection. as each species has a different diet it is difficult to imagine how humans have benefittted here (other than the humans who do the 'éxperiments').
Rabies; The World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Rabies, 1973, claimed that evidence is accumulating that parenteral injection of anti-rabies vaccine causes human deaths "under certain conditions" and goes on:
"The Committee recommends that production of fermi-type vaccines, since they contain residual living virus, should be discontinued."
On page 27 of the report it says:
"The Committee emphasises that the most valuable procedure in post-exposure treatment is the local treatment of wounds. This should be done by thoroughly washing with soap and water."
On page 28:
"Immediate first-aid procedures recommended is the flushing and washing of the wound with soap and water."
It is further disturbing to read how the wife of a U.S. diplomat became paralysed after being routinely vaccinated against rabies. She was not warned of any possible side effects from the vaccine. The article describes her condition as similar to multiple sclerosis, the patient is permanently and totally disabled. The federal judge awarded her $469,051 and her husband $50,000. The article concludes by stating:
"This court decision serves as a reminder that a judicious assessment of risk factors must be made when deciding whether or not to vaccinate against rabies."
("Compensation for Vaccine Damage", The Lancet, November 24 1979.)
The 'alternatives', which should be called real scientific methods as they produce results applicable to humans would have eliminated humans illness. To add insult (and more injury) to injury the products which harm us and pollute our environment are almost without exception animal 'tested'. The real reason for these 'tests'...“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.;
re vaccines, here is what Dr Albert Sabin had to say..."... prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." Sabin, Albert, MD statement before the subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, April 26, 1984 serial no. 98-48.
ReplyDeleteMedicines; according to the US FDA 92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products"
Cosmetics; # "After intensive study of the issue, I am convinced that the Draize eye irritancy and the Lethal Dose 50 tests are inaccurate, unreliable, costly and cruel to the animals. The tests deceive the very consumers whom they are supposed to protect, by certifying as SAFE household products and cosmetics that cause two hundred thousand hospital-recorded poisonous exposures annually."
(Paula Kislak, D.V.M., Sherman Oaks, California.)
# "As a practising physician who is Board certified in internal medicine and oncology, I can find no evidence that the Draize test, L.D. 50 test, or any other tests using animals to support the 'safety' of chemicals and cosmetics have any relevance to the human species. I strongly support legislation that prohibits the use of such animal tests by industry."
(Donald C. Doll, M.D., Columbia, Missouri, 1988.)
nutrition; this is a new claim even from supporters of vivisection. as each species has a different diet it is difficult to imagine how humans have benefittted here (other than the humans who do the 'éxperiments').
Rabies; The World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Rabies, 1973, claimed that evidence is accumulating that parenteral injection of anti-rabies vaccine causes human deaths "under certain conditions" and goes on:
"The Committee recommends that production of fermi-type vaccines, since they contain residual living virus, should be discontinued."
On page 27 of the report it says:
"The Committee emphasises that the most valuable procedure in post-exposure treatment is the local treatment of wounds. This should be done by thoroughly washing with soap and water."
On page 28:
"Immediate first-aid procedures recommended is the flushing and washing of the wound with soap and water."
It is further disturbing to read how the wife of a U.S. diplomat became paralysed after being routinely vaccinated against rabies. She was not warned of any possible side effects from the vaccine. The article describes her condition as similar to multiple sclerosis, the patient is permanently and totally disabled. The federal judge awarded her $469,051 and her husband $50,000. The article concludes by stating:
"This court decision serves as a reminder that a judicious assessment of risk factors must be made when deciding whether or not to vaccinate against rabies."
("Compensation for Vaccine Damage", The Lancet, November 24 1979.)
The 'alternatives', which should be called real scientific methods as they produce results applicable to humans would have eliminated humans illness. To add insult (and more injury) to injury the products which harm us and pollute our environment are almost without exception animal 'tested'. The real reason for these 'tests'...“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.;
All claims made in support of vivisection rely on the same falacious form of argument known as 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' ('after that therefore because of that')
"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." Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute
ReplyDelete1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known...Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer."
Why stop animal testing? Because it does not work. It is a legal not a scientific device. "... for the great majority of disease entities, the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. [We risk] overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used."
ReplyDeleteProfessor Colin Dollery in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research, ed. Cavalla, 1981, p87.
“There is at present no hard evidence to show the value of more extensive and more prolonged laboratory testing as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines that require these tests do so largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds. ” ( Professor George Teeling-Smith, in A Question of Balance; the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical innovation, p 29, publ. Office of Health Economics, 1980)
For real scientific methods such as microdosing for pharmaceutical production see drugtestingconference. com or curedisease. net
i think animal testing for cosmetics is COMPLETELY wrong as the animal has to pay for our insecurities :/ however medicsl research is a bit of a taboo ...
ReplyDeleteIn a way i am Pro Animal Experimentation because testing saved my life. When i needed a new heart, animal testing helped me to recieve one.
ReplyDeleteOmg those pictures were digusting just straight up wrong
ReplyDeletethis is disgusting! animals have feelings! animals feel pain and have personalitys! they should not be used in testing! im 14 years old and im disgusted at what people are doing to these poor innocent animals! to the people who say 'ohh well we wouldent of saved lives without animal testing and we wouldent of got vaccines' f**ck you! you wouldent like it if u were tested on would you! animals are forced! i would rather die than have some poor animal be tested on to save my life! animals were here first and should be treated with respect! im not religous but doesnt it say in the bible ' do to others and you wish to be treated'????? the people who are animal testing should be tested on themsleves and see how they like it. mother natures angry and shes coming to get you.
ReplyDeleteif i could do anything for those animals i would give them a voice the only difference between them and us is that we can speak for ourselves but they cant...
ReplyDeleteSO LET'S GIVE THEM A VOICE!!!
Did you know that you can generate cash by locking special areas of your blog / website?
ReplyDeleteSimply join AdWorkMedia and implement their content locking tool.