It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

vivisection/research self funded multi bil$ conspiracy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I beleive Animal research is just as the thread title suggest. Why after decades of this barbaric and pointless research is there still no cure for some of the worlds biggest killers, ie cancer for instance. Is it because those who fund/ and live off research industry dont want a cure? Consider all the many offshoots of the medical world/research industry that would suffer as a result of a cure. As stated the research industry generates multi billions of dollars each year, yet still no cure. convenient?
Its been argued in depth that animal models simply do not provide a good model for human disease. Yes we have some benifits both for us and animals as a result, but I ask you at what cost. Seems to me little progress for the money and time invested over the decades.
I propose murderers, serial killers childmurderers and peadophiles be used as guinea pigs for this research. This would not only alleviate unnessesary animal AND human suffering but save us money too. Why should these scumbags languish in the worlds jails at the expense of the taxpayer?
They are atleast biologically human and therefore perfect and accurate models for research benifiting humans. If after a decade of human research on humans these "brilliant" scientist still cant come up with a cure, it would seem to indicate they dont want to, dont you think? or atleast that they were never going to find a cure using less accurate animal models.
Id like to hear other thoughts on the matter.
I real;ise its a sensitive matter and my veiws enscaptulate other rather sensitive matters, but i think its a valid issue to be addressed on this board.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by instar]




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Well, given that you can 'volunteer' for studies with institutions and universities and even get monetary compensation in some cases, why not extend this to the prison system? I completely agree! Especially with prisoners serving life sentences, I'm sure many of them would volunteer for anything that gets them out of their cell for a few hours.

I'm all for it!



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
You really think these prisoners would volunteer for medical
research? They'd have to get something out of it for themselves.
Some kind of reward. What would that be?
I doubt you'd have many takers. They'd probably have to be
forced. And then that would cause an outcry from the public
about inhumane treatment of prisoners.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
You really think these prisoners would volunteer for medical
research? They'd have to get something out of it for themselves.
Some kind of reward. What would that be?
I doubt you'd have many takers. They'd probably have to be
forced. And then that would cause an outcry from the public
about inhumane treatment of prisoners.


I think they would do it for monetary compensation. (Like I talked about in my post above.) Probably doesn't have to be much.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Sorry folk, I wasnt talking of anything voluntary whatsover! Im talking lifers in for murder and the like. These scum owe society. Why on earth would we pay them? we already pay for their upkeep despite a bullet being cheaper. Afterall, they sit for years and rot on deathrow, why not give something tangible to society, not just their absence from it? And if the "research is terminal, well so be it, their on death row anyway.

But if you want to talk voluntary, i guess that could work with non painful drug test perhaps, for those in for fraud or similar non violent crimes. but again, they are supposed to be paying, not us.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Sorry folk, I wasnt talking of anything voluntary whatsover! Im talking lifers in for murder and the like. These scum owe society. Why on earth would we pay them? we already pay for their upkeep despite a bullet being cheaper. Afterall, they sit for years and rot on deathrow, why not give something tangible to society, not just their absence from it? And if the "research is terminal, well so be it, their on death row anyway.

But if you want to talk voluntary, i guess that could work with non painful drug test perhaps, for those in for fraud or similar non violent crimes. but again, they are supposed to be paying, not us.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by instar]


I understand your post, but I do not believe we will ever know of such research if it were to happen. We live in a liberal society where, unfortunately, criminals often have more rights than children and adults who never break the laws.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Your right Sourgrapes, its sad isnt it! : ( I dont think you'd find any government with the cojones to do it either, too many bleeding hearts, and they go with the voters.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Heres a snippet of interest (free domain news page)



[edit on 9-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Dude the Onion is not a good newspaper to site if you are proposing for medical experimentation on prisioners.

but it had me lauging so hard i fell of the chair.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinatracementshoes
Dude the Onion is not a good newspaper to site if you are proposing for medical experimentation on prisioners.

but it had me lauging so hard i fell of the chair.


Glad ya got laugh mate, that was my intention, nothin serious.


Nobody really came to the "use prisoners" party!



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I think your idea's already been put into practice Instar;

www.thetalkingdrum.com...

www.aches-mc.org...

www.eh.doe.gov...

What our scientists get up to with your money;

www.all-creatures.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I meant direct medical (physical) experiments Anok, replacing monkeys in stereotaxic devices having electrodes put in their brains etc and other similar mindless tortures. Im too well aware of what goes on in these labs mate. Did you get my u2u?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Definite catch 22 here - the inmate thing I'm all for but human testing is at the end of the line so to speak.

When you need serious medical treatment you are thankful that the testing has been done and most of our modern convenience items had to be tested along the way as well to make sure the stuff won't kill us.

The bulk of bio research is being done in University labs and not by the big drug/product companies. Animals are expensive to acquire and maintain and researchers do not have unlimited funds so they don't tend to go overboard with this stuff- lots of paperwork too as their are rules you have to follow - yup - bio major and worked in histopathology labs - on mice.

In many research cases you need to take the critters apart and find out what the effects are and most people in society would have a tough time justifying killing another human for that. Mice also grow fast so you can get models built quickly and see what works and what doesn't - then you move up to rats, chimps or pigs typically before any human studies and the bigger the animal the higher the cost.

At some point we will have working models of the human system and can chuck animal testing out the window but we are not there yet and not even close actually.

We humans also tend to like cute furry critters and not slimy scary ones. We do not like hurting the cute ones but we enslave cats and dogs because we think they are cute and nice to have around. The hypocrisy thing also climbs into it with some that complain - probably have nice leather seats in their cars and shoes and belts of leather but have no problem taking out a fly, spider or roach....



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   
@ UofCinLA

The problem is most animal testing leads to nothing, just scientific curiosity.

What about testing of make-up products on animals?
Is eye shadow that necessary that an animal has to have it put in their eyes to see what will happen?
Or hair spray, after shave, cologne. Household products like draino, bleech, etc...etc...etc...

www.seta.pdx.edu...

www.animalsneedrights.net...

We don't enslave dogs and cats, they are domesticated creatures unable to survive in the wild. You suggest we set all out pets free?...

We are talking about things like this;
(*warning graphic pics*)

www.all-creatures.org...

It may seem that only the furry cute animals get attention, well it's because 'slimey scary' ones are not generaly used in animal testing.
It has been shown that most medical testing on animals is not a good indication of Human reaction.
There are alternatives, such as testing Human tissue and computer models.

www.nv.cc.va.us...



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   

At some point we will have working models of the human system and can chuck animal testing out the window but we are not there yet and not even close actually.

Many would disagree and there abounds much proof of this fallacy.


We humans also tend to like cute furry critters and not slimy scary ones. We do not like hurting the cute ones but we enslave cats and dogs because we think they are cute and nice to have around. The hypocrisy thing also climbs into it with some that complain - probably have nice leather seats in their cars and shoes and belts of leather but have no problem taking out a fly, spider or roach....


you were sounding quite reasonable up to this point, why bring such irrelavent nonsense into the argument ? Do you assume any argument against animal experiments is based on nothing but animal rights and emotions? think again. There is overwhelming medical/scientific edivence showing that such test are enevitably inaccurate, and the data produced not applicable to real life scenarios involving humans. Its human health that suffers through continued use of an antiquated system of research using poor models (non human biology). Im sure I could fill these pages with links
full of evidence, but folk look at lots of links in a forum and just dont bother reading them, further, cut n paste info from other sites (for relevant arguments) appears to be forbidden by ATS rules. So if your intrested in the evidence you will have to google it, however heres one with links to many ~ specifically designed to give voice to those who wish to argue against , with scientific backing!

members.iinet.net.au...




[edit on 12-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Hold on a sec -

Lumping pure research as in the stuff I was doing, with cosmetic/product testing are related but not the same. I mean I sure want to docs to know what clorox will do to an eyeball in case someone accidentally shoots it in mine along the way and I hope you would too as you lie in on an ER gurney - yes??

Yes a holy grail is to be able to create an accurate chemical interaction model for the whole human body and all the various tissues and organs. It's being worked on from a number of fronts - genome, chemistry, biology, physics. It will happen, but unlikely in our lifetimes - until then you have to test on something - or are you willing to have a reduced lifespan and higher mortality rates??

Example - I worked on meth (and other nasty drugs) effects on neuron development. Mice models actually work quite well in this regard and yes we had to take the critters apart. Right, wrong, good, bad - who knows but the research led to a greater understanding of the nasty effect that were being seen in the human pop, and appropriate warnings given and treatments were being looked at (the lab also pioneered in vitro neuron growth - which WILL lead to reduced animal testing). You also have to study all sorts of related issues - overweight, underweight, high fat diet, low fat diet, dehydration etc. to get an understanding of what's going on. It's far from simple, low pay and long years of work....

Now my criticism and I'm not pointing at anyone here just in general that where do you draw the line? Is it right to kill any animal or just some? Do insects, reptiles, fish get lumped in here or just the cute furry ones? Cats and dogs can and do exist in the wild just fine and because we love and care for them it's not enslavement - ever worn choke collar?? Are oils spills bad because they kill the cute fishies and birds and otters while at the same time providing a nice meal to a whole host of microorganisms?? Nobody cheered for the rights of those bugs that got a bounty of a harvest. My point - where do you draw the line??


I do not condone or support animal cruelty or excessive testing in any way and sincerely wish we didn't have to do it (I'm actually on your side here) but I do recognize and seriously way the benefits that testing has done for us along the way - you really have to leave emotion out of it and way the good and bad....



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Point is MOST animal research IS unnecessary.
Animal testing that has really benefited mankind is a very small part of the whole picture. I'd be happy to just have the unnecessary stuff stopped.
If an animal needs to be tested on and there is NO possible alternative, and it's a case of life or death for Humans, then that is a different matter.

Why do we need to draw lines, can't we just be more compassionate where we can? Right now we don't even try. That's my point.
Just because some creatures might not get the attention others do does that mean we shouldn't care for ANY animals?
Got to start somewhere and usually that means yes, the nice furry ones, cause they peak most ppls conscience first. Hard to get people excited about about saving insects and stuff.
When we stop the testing of monkeys, rabbits, rodents etc... we can then concentrate on other animals.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
ANOK

Point is MOST animal research IS unnecessary.
Animal testing that has really benefited mankind is a very small part of the whole picture.


I'm not entirely certain that data can be easily collected or proven to any degree and the we have to define beneficial. Every drug, compound, and most implantable devices and surgical protocols have been developed through animal testing to the point where they are statistically proven to be safe and effective for human trials. There have been great strides in our mortality rate and life expectancy due to that work - unpleasant as it is.

The outcries HAVE reduced animal testing and pushed researchers to develop in vitro tissue culturing for these purposes. Animals are expensive and chew up grant money quickly and any better or cheaper way to do it IS looked for....



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Yes a holy grail is to be able to create an accurate chemical interaction model for the whole human body and all the various tissues and organs. It's being worked on from a number of fronts - genome, chemistry, biology, physics. It will happen, but unlikely in our lifetimes - until then you have to test on something - or are you willing to have a reduced lifespan and higher mortality rates??


My point. There is NO NEED to test on ANY animal species for future benifit to man. The holy grail you mention is sitting on death row and languishing uselessly in prison cells around the world giving no significate benifit to the society it owes it's debt, and at the expense of those to whom they owe there debt. If you use a perfect human model to start with, you save time and $$$ and errors. Its quite straightforward. A tumour deliberatly induced in a dog will not produce the same results as a tumour found in a human. Why use anything but a human for testing of medicines For humans?
Incidently I was speaking of your "pure research" not only cosmetics testing, and there is little emotion in it, just common sense.Like you said, research animals being expensive, scum on death row are far more expensive to the taxpayer, how much does it cost to keep these useless human scum alive and fed each year?

Did you read any of the links?
The scientific case against animal experiments
www.mrmcmed.org...

MOD EDIT: shortened link with BB code
[edit on 12-12-2004 by instar]

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Spectre]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
....scum on death row are far more expensive to the taxpayer, how much does it cost to keep these useless human scum alive and fed each year?


I agree here - talk to the ACLU for why we do not do this - boils on our collective butt's in my opinion....

Yes I looked - those sites have a vested interest in promoting their agenda. There are always two sides - I could trot out probably 5-10000 citations from Medline for this year alone where testing was shown to work. I never said it was the be all or end all and we use the models that work best depending on the critter. There is good and bad here and for many it's a very emotional issue. For me it's not - I see benefits and pitfalls but I'm not prepared to weigh in and cast a vote on this either way just yet....

Yes - I have a slight bias because I was a scientist once and I've seen the good that medical research has done. I've also see the pain and emotions on both people and animals that the other side supports....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join