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.

 

Myths about animal research

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Have you or someone close to you ever had an organ transplant? Diabetes? Needed antibiotics to clear up an infection or disease? Who should you be thanking for these modern medical advances? Doctors? Sure. Scientists? Sure. Most of all you should be thanking our furry friends. Most of the major medical advances of the 20th century couldn't have come about without animal testing. The life expectancy of humans has been raised approx. 20.8 years because biomedical research involving animals. Here's a brief list of some of the animals you should give a hug to and say thank you as well as some of their contributions in research:

Pig- organ transplants, skin graphs, medicine that is administered through skin absorption (Nicoderm patch, birth control, etc.)

Horses- tetanus shot and measuring blood pressure

Cow- smallpox vaccine and pathogenesis of tuberculosis

Dog- rabies vaccine, mechanisms of immunity, and joint replacements

Rabbit- Rabies vaccine and mechanisms of immunity

Cat- anticoagulants and treatments for eye disorders

Sheep- Anthrax vaccine and birth defects

Armadillo- treatments for leprosy

Mouse- penicillin, gene transfer for cystic fibrosis, and pathogenesis of Typhus

Guinea pig- tetanus shot, vitamin deficiencies, and the testing of lithium

Rat- understanding diabetes and treatments for arthritis

Primates- understanding Rh factor, polio vaccine, rubella vaccine, and promising drugs for the prevention of AIDS

There are some myths about animal research that I would like to clear up and this will probably lead to several posts. For now though, I'm going to help bust five myths. They are as follows:

Myth #1- Computer models and cell cultures can replace animal testing.

Truth- Animal models provide an invaluable and irreplacable insight into the human systems. This is because certain animals have similiar genetic/or physiological systems. Even the most sophisticated technology models can not mimic the interactions that occur in a living model. There is NO complete alternative to animal research.

Myth #2- Only humans benefit from animal testing.

Truth- Humans and animals benefit from animal testing. Your pet receives vaccines, de-wormers, surgeries, and other diseases that can be treated with modern medicine. Would you volunteer your pet to be the first to receive a new vaccine that did not have prior testing- not knowing the possible side effects? Do you like living with fleas? How about heartworms? Would you let your dog die of heartworms, instead of receiving treatment?

Myth #3- Laboratories steal people's pets for research.

Truth- Most animals in research are specifically raised for research (mice, rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, and most cats and dogs). The remainder of the cats and dogs are acquired through animal shelters from "death row". The USDA requires certificates of authenticity, perform audits, and monitor vendors who sell animals to research facilities. Scientists neither need or want to do research on your pet.

Myth #4- No laws or government regulations protect research animals.

Truth- Let's see for starters here is a brief list or organizations that animal research facilities are governed by:
USDA
FDA
AAALACi
ALAS
AVMA
The Animal Welfare Act

Myth #5- There is no need to test consumer products on animals. Some companies have "not tested on animals" products that you can buy.

Truth- Companies that manufacture food, drugs, household goods, and cosmetics have an ethical and moral obligation to protect the general population. Companies use animal testing to not only determine the safety of a product, but also the important data of the hazards of the product. What would you do in case of an emergency (Poison Control Center). ALL products and ingredients in products has been tested on animals at one time or another. Once the ingredient or product has been proven safe, it is rarely tested a second time.

So the next time you have a headache and pop an asipirin, use neosporin on a cut, take cough medicine, have knee surgery, or buy shampoo remember who the real heroes are and without their sacrifice our lives and other animals lives would not be the same.

PS: I made this same post in PTS, but I feel as though it has been overlooked due to less traffic in PTS. Here is a link to the original thread:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Know what is sad? PETA !FIREBOMBS! places that do animal research, but the Vice President is using insulin. That's right, the people who burn buildings down to the ground for researching medicine like insulin on animals, are using insulin.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Know what is sad? PETA !FIREBOMBS! places that do animal research, but the Vice President is using insulin. That's right, the people who burn buildings down to the ground for researching medicine like insulin on animals, are using insulin.


Oh, this is a quite well known fact (at least to those of us that follow the farcical machinations of PETA and other like-minded groups). This is hypocracy at it's finest. If I'm not mistaken, insulin was actually tested predominately on dogs - one of the animals they fight the hardest to "liberate" (deadlynightshade, please correct me if I'm wrong). Its things like this that make me wish there was the ability to restrict presription of drugs to people. I'd love to see his reaction if he was told he could no longer have his insulin shots, due to the fact that they were tested on animals.

IMHO, extremist groups such as this should be treated with equally extreme measures, because they certainly don't seem to listen to reason and science (see my reply on this thread, 6th post down for my thoughts on that subject).

[edit for spelling]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by obsidian468]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
deadlynightshade. There are as many counter claims against animals research and the value thereof. At the end of the day there are those who support this practice and those such as myself who do not.

I am pleased that you feel comfortable that an animal has been sacrificed to help you. For myself, I would not want an animal to die to save me.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
deadlynightshade. There are as many counter claims against animals research and the value thereof. At the end of the day there are those who support this practice and those such as myself who do not.

I am pleased that you feel comfortable that an animal has been sacrificed to help you. For myself, I would not want an animal to die to save me.


Do you realize the undertaking you are embarking on in not supporting the practice? The most effective way to show your lack of support for a certain practice is to boycott the practice and anything that has been the result of said practice. In this case, you would have to boycott virtually every technological advance since the first chimp swung down from the trees and decided to walk upright. Almost everything we know has been the product of animal testing - medicine, food (and not just meat), fabric for clothes, electricity, fuel, weapons, the list goes on.

Cavemen tested their new hunting weapons on animals ("Gronk, you think new spear good? *stabs animal* Spear good."), thereby helping us achieve new agricultural knowledge. Early science used animals far more often than people to test its theories (animals are far more plentiful, and don't carry a death sentence in the event something goes wrong). Because of this early animal testing, we have such advances as modern agriculture, modern medicine, modern physics, domesticated animals, etc. Back in the early days of science, animal testing was unregulated, and often brutal. It was far outside of our current standards for the humane treatment of animals. Now, however, with the amount of regulation on animal testing facilities, I would be willing to bet that the animals at these facilities are treated better than an average pet. I remember deadlynightshade recounting a story to me:

She said that in the lab she works in, if an animal so much as sneezes (something you or I would simply overlook), within an hour, a veterinarian is in there, taking swabs and sending them out for cultures to be done, ensuring the health of the animal.

Health and welfare of animals is of utmost importance in these labs. Not only are the animals given top notch medical care, but also great lengths are taken for these animals to have enrichment toys, socialization, and other things necessary for a healthy and happy life. Take a read through the Animal Welfare Act that deadly linked to in the original article. This is the basis for the care and management of laboratory animals. Do you treat your own pets this well? Even during testing, lab workers are required by law to do everything they can (without skewing the results of the test) to ensure that the animal is as comfortable as it can be.

It is this need to go above and beyond to ensure the health, safety, and enrichment of the animals lives that is a good part of the reason that pharmeceudicals are so costly. On the average, roughly half of the lab personnel are working exclusively for the good of the animal. Of the remaining half, you have the people doing the testing, people monitoring the testing to make sure that manditory regulations are followed, and management and executive personnel. This said, the largest single group in a reserach lab is those people responsible for the welfare of the animals.

I do not wish to change your stance on this issue. I just ask that you, and everyone else that makes a decision on this issue, one way or the other, make that decision based on being informed about both sides of the issue.


pao

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I am pleased that you feel comfortable that an animal has been sacrificed to help you. For myself, I would not want an animal to die to save me.


if you were placed in a life or death situation, would you still feel the same way?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pao

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I am pleased that you feel comfortable that an animal has been sacrificed to help you. For myself, I would not want an animal to die to save me.


if you were placed in a life or death situation, would you still feel the same way?


Yes I would. I would rely on natural treatments. I also know others who have been in a life and death situation and who have taken the same path. That would be my way but others must choose their own path.


Posted by obsidian468; She said that in the lab she works in, if an animal so much as sneezes (something you or I would simply overlook), within an hour, a veterinarian is in there, taking swabs and sending them out for cultures to be done, ensuring the health of the animal.


It is naïve to think that this is common practice. For every research institution that MAY behave in this manner there are any number who do not. The suffering that some animals go through in the name of research is absolutely appalling. There is also solid evidence, which highlights that despite a product being tested on animals and passed as safe for humans it surfaces later that in fact it was not and then we are off on the vicious circle of litigation and death.






[edit on 25/5/2005 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

It is naïve to think that this is common practice. For every research institution that MAY behave in this manner there are any number who do not. The suffering that some animals go through in the name of research is absolutely appalling. There is also solid evidence, which highlights that despite a product being tested on animals and passed as safe for humans it surfaces later that in fact it was not and then we are off on the vicious circle of litigation and death.


Some labs may not have such a quick response time as far as veterinary assistance of animals, however, every lab is required by federal law (mandated by several national and international organizations/agencies) to provide health care (weekly/monthly physicals, dependent on species and maturation rate, enrichment toys, socialization, etc) above and beyond what is normally given to animals who are pets. If a lab doesn't comply with these regulations, then by all means, expose them and have them proscecuted. Penalties in the US are quite severe for violations of these laws.

As far as safety recalls on animal tested products after approval, this is not a situation that is limited to the bio-medical industry. Bridges have failed due to engineering flaws, cars have been deemed unsafe after a flaw was discovered. Children's toys have been recalled due to safety issues. Accidents happen. Mistakes happen. Fact is, the percentage of recalled medical products tested on animals is significantly less than the percentage of recalled products in any other industry.

If you would like to see animal testing disappear completely, I'd advise you to get to work on two things:

1) Solve the human genome. Doing this will enable scientists and researchers to make humans immune to disease in general, and curing existing diseases will be far easier.

2) Develop the mythical computer that can accurately replicate the workings of the human body. It'll take a while - you'll need roughly triple the processing power of the biggest supercomputers available today, and more RAM than is currently possible to produce (not to mention the massive amounts of disk space needed to contain all of the genetic information and the cell/molecule behavior information. Remember, we have trillions upon trillions of atoms in our body. A computer that can replace live animal testing would be required to account for every last one of them. Also, you better figure out step one first. Without solving and understanding the human genome, this computer would be worthless.

Just because something is herbal doesn't mean it's better. Some plants are more toxic to humans than any lab developed toxins. In saying that, however, I am not denying the viability of certain herbal remedies. I'm fairly well versed in both herbal and chemical remedies, and there's many times that I will choose the herbal remedy over the chemical one. However, some ailments simply cannot be solved with herbal remedies (at least none that we've discovered yet).



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You know, alot of herbal treatments are tested on animals too. I mean, alot of people back in the stone age and copper ages, to figure out what would be safe to eat, would have a domesticated animal eat it. If the animal lived, and wasn't sick, it would be okay to forage and consume.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The US isn’t the centre of the world you know and there are research labs in other countries. It is important to reflect on the total not just what happens in the US. I have also sighted pictures that have come from US labs that tell a very different story.

On the issue of plant and natural therapies – yes – some can be toxic. I am sure some natural therapy companies test on animals. The ones I buy from don’t. It is a matter of doing your homework. As stated previously I choose to live my life a certain way. It is for others to choose their path.

There are always two sides to the story and opposing views. You won’t sway me to change my view and I certainly won’t sway you to change yours.

In the middle ages Kings had people eat their food to see if it was safe as well.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Not all the "testing" results in death. My dog was on the ground floor of a new extremely experimental treatment for a heart disease. It is an alternative to open heart surgery and was done 8 years ago. Only a handful of the procedures had been done, mostly it was theory. 8 years later, he is a healthy happy dog (granted, getting kind of old with a hint or arthritis) and the heart procedure has now been approved for use on humans and in fact is a preferred method.

I do oppose some of the frivolous uses. The pumping of cows full of antibiotics, the "see how much hairspray before he goes blind"(frankly if a person is spraying THAT much hairspray in their eyes they Deserve to go blind...sheesh, only took once for me to get the hint. That hurts) tests, but for medical research, it isn't always what it seems. And where is the alternatives?



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Exactly , why do you expect that animal testing necessarily means SACRIFICING ? i mean supposedly, you're testing a CURE aren'T you ? . if were given the choice to choose testing anything on uncle fred or a rat , i definitely know what to choose . an animal life no matter how precious , is never equal to a human life , and if it's all for a GOOD cause , i.e. finding a cure for a disease , and not new weapons for instance , and if it's done in the most humane way possible , and the person who's doing it knows what he's doing , and not just goofing around , then by all means :
VIVA animal testing . check history people , without animal testing none of you would be alive , because your grandparents would have died before giving birth to your parents... merci



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tempogen
....check history people , without animal testing none of you would be alive , because your grandparents would have died before giving birth to your parents... merci


This is absolutely not true.

Just read this one story and tell me that you don't have a problem with animal testing? There are hundreds of stories such as this and millions yes, MILLIONS of animals die in labs annually. That is fact.


www.vivisectioninfo.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
geesh..........i spent 5minutes typing up my response on this then when i hit submit...........got an error and the whole flippin thing disappeared........and i was PARTICULARLY BRILLIANT......dang it!



now i don't have time for the whole thing again.....will have to do a quick one......

i'm a firm believer in research. one day we will have cures for alzheimers,als,ms,md,aids,cancer and all the other nasties that kill adults and children...............and we can thank the researchers for that........

i'm an avid animal lover...........my pets are my family...........always have been.

but i still feel that animal research is a necessary evil.

that's my short and quick thoughts on it.


angie



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
deadlynightshade. There are as many counter claims against animals research and the value thereof. At the end of the day there are those who support this practice and those such as myself who do not.

I am pleased that you feel comfortable that an animal has been sacrificed to help you. For myself, I would not want an animal to die to save me.


I understand your sentiment there.

But without animal testing, chances are you or a loved one wouldn't be alive today.

It's not pleasant, it's not pretty, and it's usually not considered polite, but the truth remains - animal testing has validity, and until we can perhaps clone human organs so we can test on those instead, there are millions of people (if not billions) whose lives would be a lot worse (if not gone completely) if not for animal testing.

I'd be interested to see legitimate information confirming that animal trials are completely unnecessary.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Animals created in this Earth to help us humans.

So its not big deal if one or two apes die in expirment for HIV vaccine because maybe its a cure for millions in Africa

Did you know that the west nile virsus is know by the birds

The catch the bird and see if has a west nile virsus then they release it



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

There is NO complete alternative to animal research.


YES THERE IS! our jails are full of em!



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar

There is NO complete alternative to animal research.


YES THERE IS! our jails are full of em!


I would like to try it on humans expect if its on its last stage and i am qiute sure the consienss or sideeffect insit deadly

Its not i to judge who is going to die and how its done



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Huh, the state does decide , often! why use lethal injection when these scum can be of real use to humanity? its a wicked waste. imo, if you rape/murder etc, you forfeit human rights. why pay my tax dollars looking after, housing and feeding these scum, they are supposed to pay for their crime, not us!



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Huh, the state does decide , often! why use lethal injection when these scum can be of real use to humanity? its a wicked waste. imo, if you rape/murder etc, you forfeit human rights. why pay my tax dollars looking after, housing and feeding these scum, they are supposed to pay for their crime, not us!



I know its hard but sometime it will make a lot of problems. Because you have human right and stuff like that, The guy even have a family to protect his right.

In islam if a guy is murder someone he is beheaded easy a that and if he steals. you will think its creal but it normal because usual the process is taken carefully and there is another person next to that. You have to make the guy to rest and make him calm and you have do it at one blow.

As for longing at it as crulity i think not because if youjail these people they hunt there victims and victims family as well as it will make other a reminder




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join