Animal Tests

[Captain Chaos]

[QUOTE-SHW]That is one of the points of one of the quotes from my posts here that I have already made, CC; that some drugs shown to harm animals in fact are beneficial to humans, and that we may have thrown away valuable drugs for us based on data that showed it deadly to them.[/quote]
You are generalizing from a few examples to the whole.

The fact that there are such examples does not, in any way, prove that all such chemicals would be safe to test in humans.

Do you think they care about you more than the profits and degree of protection from litigation that animal testing can offer them?

Fear of litigation is what protects me and my daughter.

They most certainly do need to look for specific effects caused from chemicals.

First-line testing of chemicals on humans is never going to happen here. You believe the animal tests are imperfect, but that does not mean they have no value in predicting dangerous human reactions.

Beware of hasty generalization.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You are generalizing from a few examples to the whole.

Then what was the point of you asking me to name one drug that was developed without animal testing; and why ask me if it would make a difference to me if you could name some drugs proven harmful to animals and then not introduced to humans?

The fact that there are such examples does not, in any way, prove that all such chemicals would be safe to test in humans.

That is right, it does not. But many scientists are reasonably sure we may have thrown away many useful drugs merely because they caused damage to animals, noting that just because it causes harm to animals does not mean it would do so for humans.

StrongHeartsWin:
Do you think they care about you more than the profits and degree of protection from litigation that animal testing can offer them?

Fear of litigation is what protects me and my daughter.

What about the hundreds of thousands of people a year who are injured or die from badly developed drugs? Fear of lititgation did not protect them? Why do you think you are different? Just because you`ve been lucky up till now? Are you saying their sons and daughters injuries or deaths are properly made up for by a million dollar settlement? You have a false sense of security, CC.

First-line testing of chemicals on humans is never going to happen here.

Chemicals? Perhaps not. In vitro and cell cultures can handle that. Drugs? It sure will and has already. Micro dosing of drugs will allow for more accurate data to come about sooner than lengthy animal trials.

You believe the animal tests are imperfect, but that does not mean they have no value in predicting dangerous human reactions.

They are inefficient and often misleading. 9 out of 10 drugs after passing animal trials fail in the clinical testing or are taken off the market shortly after appearing. Animal testing success has been dismal at best.

Beware of hasty generalization.

CC, I am the one thinking outside the box. You are the one repeating the unsubstantiated mantra of the status quo.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Then what was the point of you asking me to name one drug that was developed without animal testing; and why ask me if it would make a difference to me if you could name some drugs proven harmful to animals and then not introduced to humans?

I was just asking if it would make a difference, as a setup to explaining that we should be wary of generalizing. Basically, I was going to point out that it would not be fair to generalize from one example to the whole, even if it were in support of my own position.

But many scientists are reasonably sure we may have thrown away many useful drugs merely because they caused damage to animals, noting that just because it causes harm to animals does not mean it would do so for humans.

If it causes harm to animals, it lets us know that much greater degrees of caution would be needed in testing on humans - and only if it is a chemical that warrants such risks, because the disease being treated is so harmful.

What about the hundreds of thousands of people a year who are injured or die from badly developed drugs? Fear of lititgation did not protect them? Why do you think you are different? Just because you`ve been lucky up till now? Are you saying their sons and daughters injuries or deaths are properly made up for by a million dollar settlement? You have a false sense of security, CC.

I do not.

I did not say that fear of litigation is a perfect protection. However, it provides a significant degree of protection.

Chemicals? Perhaps not. In vitro and cell cultures can handle that.

See, it is statements like that, that turn me off of your reasoning. I do not believe you can prove this. Your support is going to be by pointing out some chemicals that were tested this way, and then generalizing to the whole.

There are sooooooooooo many chemicals that are tested on animals in a large variety of ways, to see what kinds of results we get. Testing on cell cultures just isn't the same. I do not mean chemicals, as in household chemicals. I mean biochemicals - basic research. The stuff that eventually, perhaps decades down the line, leads to human treatments.

I have a friend who experiments with circadian rhythms in rats. She is studying the neurochemistry of melatonin and related compounds. Her goal is not simply testing for efficacy. She is mapping out how the rat's circadian rhythm is determined in the brain.

This research will, eventually, translate to human subjects. The translation is highly imperfect, but it will do so.


Another example, transgenic rats with components of human immune systems have been created to test for HIV medications. Researchers also use primates deliberately infected with SIV for this purpose. This is far far more effective research than testing in cell cultures. Eventually, these drugs could be tested in humans, but not until they are proven effective.

Why don't we test potentially ineffective treatments in humans with HIV? Because the virus needs to be kept suppressed. If they receive an ineffective treatment, they will hasten their death.

9 out of 10 drugs after passing animal trials fail in the clinical testing or are taken off the market shortly after appearing. Animal testing success has been dismal at best.

This is a misleading use of statistics.

Tell me, what percentage of drugs never make it to human testing, because they were shown to be harmful or ineffective in animal tests?

CC, I am the one thinking outside the box. You are the one repeating the unsubstantiated mantra of the status quo.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said, beware of hasty generalization:
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dariam]

what are your reasons guys to be against or in favor of the animal tests.

[StrongHeartsWin]

SHW:
But many scientists are reasonably sure we may have thrown away many useful drugs merely because they caused damage to animals, noting that just because it causes harm to animals does not mean it would do so for humans.

Quote by: Captain Chaos If it causes harm to animals, it lets us know that much greater degrees of caution would be needed in testing on humans - and only if it is a chemical that warrants such risks, because the disease being treated is so harmful.

That is the good thing about microdosing; a great respect for caution is built into the very concept of it.

I did not say that fear of litigation is a perfect protection. However, it provides a significant degree of protection.

SHW:
Chemicals? Perhaps not. In vitro and cell cultures can handle that.

See, it is statements like that, that turn me off of your reasoning. I do not believe you can prove this. Your support is going to be by pointing out some chemicals that were tested this way, and then generalizing to the whole. There are sooooooooooo many chemicals that are tested on animals in a large variety of ways, to see what kinds of results we get. Testing on cell cultures just isn't the same. I do not mean chemicals, as in household chemicals. I mean biochemicals - basic research. The stuff that eventually, perhaps decades down the line, leads to human treatments.

Excerpt:In product development, drug discovery, and safety evaluation, the use of in vitro tests has become commonplace, resulting almost exclusively from the evolution of science rather than any fundamental change in philosophy. Yet all in vitro methods are alternatives to animal testing.Source

I have a friend who experiments with circadian rhythms in rats. She is studying the neurochemistry of melatonin and related compounds. Her goal is not simply testing for efficacy. She is mapping out how the rat's circadian rhythm is determined in the brain. This research will, eventually, translate to human subjects. The translation is highly imperfect, but it will do so.

Mere conjecture that it will do so. There are more research projects on the books based on rats and mice that have never translated to human use than the ones that have.

Another example, transgenic rats with components of human immune systems have been created to test for HIV medications. Researchers also use primates deliberately infected with SIV for this purpose. This is far far more effective research than testing in cell cultures. Eventually, these drugs could be tested in humans, but not until they are proven effective.

Excerpt:Human tissue – all that we know about HIV/AIDS has come from studying humans and human tissue; particularly blood. Similarly, everything we know about Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases has been learned by studying patients and their tissues.

According toDr. John Xuereb, Director of the Cambridge Brain Bank and Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre; “Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases occur in humans and it is in human tissue that we will find the answers to these diseases.” New drugs can be tested in human tissues, ethically obtained with fully informed consent, before they are given to volunteers in microdose studies. Companies such as Asterand work exclusively with human tissue because it is more appropriate than animal tissue: see www.asterand.com, Biopta. Proof of concept in man. Source

Why don't we test potentially ineffective treatments in humans with HIV? Because the virus needs to be kept suppressed. If they receive an ineffective treatment, they will hasten their death.

Strange word combination. Potentially also qualifies it as effective. But here:

Excerpt:Aidsvax was tested on 8,000 high-risk volunteers because it protected chimpanzees from HIV infection. Unfortunately for the volunteers, it afforded them no protection whatsoever. Source

Tell me, what percentage of drugs never make it to human testing, because they were shown to be harmful or ineffective in animal tests?

And I told you that many scientists believe that many useful and beneficial drugs for humans have been lost because of that. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Another example, transgenic rats with components of human immune systems have been created to test for HIV medications.

And what HIV medications have resulted from transgenic rats?

Researchers also use primates deliberately infected with SIV for this purpose.

What HIV medicines have been derived primarily from primates which have been purposely infected with HIV or SIV? And, where are the primates who have been infected with HIV or SIV that have advanced to the stage of AIDS?

Excerpt:Experimenters have been infecting chimps with the HIV virus since 1984. None have become clinically ill, in spite of being infected with several different strains of the virus, having their immune systems altered with drugs, having treatments designed to specifically destroy the cells which are thought to be most active in protecting the body from HIV infection, and being co-infected with other viruses which were presumed to help HIV gain a foothold. Experimenters have even injected human HIV-infected brain tissue directly into chimpanzee brains, but to no avail. Source

With rare exceptions, NHPs(non human primates) don’t develop AIDS when infected with HIV; experimental results cannot be confidently extrapolated to humans. None of 50-plus NHP-tested vaccines (such as “Aidsvax”) has succeeded in humans. Effective anti-HIV drugs were conceived and developed using in vitro and in silico methods, without reliance on animal models. Source

This is far far more effective research than testing in cell cultures.

Oh really? Here:

Excerpt:
Epidemiological research and in vitro research led to the discovery of the virus and the mode of transmission. Mary Guinan of the CDC first stated that the new disease must be transmitted via blood or other bodily fluids.Drs. Montagnier and Gallo both conducted in vitro research to isolate the virus. AZT, one of the first medications used to treat AIDS was originally an anti-cancer drug. The efficacy of AZT was first demonstrated in 1985 using test tube research. It went directly to clinical trials without going through the usual animal tests. One reason for this was that it was so well known from it's use in cancer. AZT, 3TC, protease inhibitors, ddI, ddC,d4T, Indinavir, Ritonavir, Saquinavir, Nevirapine and hydroxyurea were alldeveloped from in vitro or test tube methods. Source

and more:

Excerpt:In vitro research on human blood cells, not animal experimentation, revealed the following idiosyncrasies. HIV's efficiency in humans relies on very specific and minuscule aspects of human white blood cells called helper T-cells. These cells have portals on their surface called receptors. These receptors work in tandem with precise proteins to invite HIV into the white blood cell where the virus then reproduces. Receptors can be very species-specific and sometimes vary even within species, which explains why chimpanzees and even some people whose helper T-cells are exposed to HIV never progress to AIDS.

HIV-infected humans who do not progress to AIDS offer very good insights into possible ways of countermanding the disease. Their identity is epidemiologically derived, and in vitro research has isolated the human gene believed responsible for their immunity. The sequencing of the HIV genome was also accomplished via in vitro research. The animal experimentation community claims that AZT and other anti-AIDS medications were developed as a result of animal experiments. However, a look at the history of these drugs' development proves the contrary. All this human data has reliably informed the development of HIV medications and the effort to produce a vaccine. Source

Eventually, these drugs could be tested in humans, but not until they are proven effective.

You mean proven effective in animals? Which ones ever have been so and then in humans? What in the past are you basing your hope for the future on?

If animal testing is so efficient then we should have a slew of HIV meds and discoveries concerning HIV developed from animal testing. Well, which ones are they that have emerged from animal testing?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Animals are the obvious and logical choice for testing medicines. If the choice is between 50 bunnies having a rough go at it and 1 person dying... the bunnies are gonna have a rough go at it.

Needless testing, just to see what happens for fun is wrong. Testing to save human life is acceptable.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW And what HIV medications have resulted from transgenic rats?

Dunno - I have not researched it.

I do know that I read an article yesterday about a new treatment for prompting an immune response against HIV, that was tested on primates. It appears promising.

With rare exceptions, NHPs(non human primates) don’t develop AIDS when infected with HIV; experimental results cannot be confidently extrapolated to humans. None of 50-plus NHP-tested vaccines (such as “Aidsvax”) has succeeded in humans. Effective anti-HIV drugs were conceived and developed using in vitro and in silico methods, without reliance on animal models.

HIV AIDS > Rabies-based vaccine could be effective against HIV

Quote by: http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm This said, there is one primate still commonly used to conduct efficacy testing: the Rhesus macaque monkey. Because Rhesus macaques originate from Asia, rather than Africa, they have never been exposed to SIV, and thus have no natural immune responses to it. A Rhesus macaque that is infected with SIV will therefore develop AIDS type illnesses in a relatively short time 3.

You are correct that we have not yet developed an effective HIV vaccine. The assumption that we will never succeed is simple hopelessness. I assume you are not going there.

You may disagree with researchers about the use of monkeys in pursuing an HIV vaccine - but these researchers are experts in the matter, and know more about it than you or I, and they see it is a necessary component of their research. They might not see it as the only necessary component, but they still see it is important to their research.

I am not ready to give up on HIV vaccine research. I do not believe you are offering a better alternative to the use of monkey's in this research.

Quote by: http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm As well as the testing of new drugs and other products, animals may also be used for more general research that aims to gain a greater understanding of a disease. Rhesus macaques, chimpanzees and even cats (who can get Feline Immunodeficiency Virus) may be used as human substitutes to see how HIV-like viruses operate within the body.

I am guessing you assume that this basic science is unnecessary.

You mean proven effective in animals? Which ones ever have been so and then in humans?

I know that both AZT and Tenofovir have been tested in animals for efficacy.


However...

I must acknowledge that HIV is a poor example, because it is a human-only disease. Plenty of HIV medications were tested for safety in animals, before being used in humans, but not really for efficacy.


Would examples of drugs that were tested for efficacy in animals, before being tested on humans, make a difference to you?

If animal testing is so efficient then we should have a slew of HIV meds and discoveries concerning HIV developed from animal testing.

I did not say animal testing was so efficient.

But, look, researchers clearly believe it is a crucial component of what they do.

Are you claiming that we have not made any advances through animal testing that we would not have already made without it?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I do know that I read an article yesterday about a new treatment for prompting an immune response against HIV, that was tested on primates. It appears promising. HIV AIDS > Rabies-based vaccine could be effective against HIV

Most researchers end their reports with "promising" and "more research in larger groups of animals need to be conducted." I`ve read those phrases hundreds of times in the AIDS vaccine quest with the use of animals. If I were a scientist wanting more government funding in the form of grants, I, too, would end my reports that way. I would have a vested interest in doing so -- keeping my mortgage paid up, kids get braces, food on the table, etc...

You are correct that we have not yet developed an effective HIV vaccine. The assumption that we will never succeed is simple hopelessness. I assume you are not going there.

I have never hinted that an HIV vaccine would never be found or to search of one is hopeless. What I have been saying is that animals have not proven to be an effective model for that quest and after billions of dollars invested we have a clear picture of the lack of efficiency that has brought us. In vitro and cell tissue using human human cells, however, has been responsible for many, if not most, of all the major breakthroughs in AIDS understanding and treatment for humans. We can only muse with common sense of what the billions of dollars dumped into animal research would have brought us had that been directed more to those ways that have thus far brought us the best results.

You may disagree with researchers about the use of monkeys in pursuing an HIV vaccine - but these researchers are experts in the matter, and know more about it than you or I, and they see it is a necessary component of their research.

Again:

You may disagree with politicians and beaurocrats about the use of the draft and war in pursuing national objectives, but these politicians are experts in political matters, and know more about it than you or I, and they see those things as a necessary component of their plans.

Healthy skepticism doesn`t buy into that reasoning. Besides, there are many doctors, scientists, and researchers who do view animal testing as inefficient.

Excerpt:…one of the great fallacies in this calculation is that they are assuming that the mouse or rat or the hamster predicts for man, and we have no basis for this prediction…So it’s again a half-baked guess… Does the animal model have any relevance to human disease? If not we’re wasting a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of good scientists, and a lot of good space at NIH… I completely agree with Dr. Clayton that extrapolation is unscientific… the chief objective here is to keep us all employed and to make sure we do interesting experiments so we can keep coming back to nice places like this. Coulston and Shubick (Eds) Human Epidemiology and Animal Laboratory Correlations in Chemical Carcinogenesis; Ablex Pub 1980 p391-3 and p309.Source

They might not see it as the only necessary component, but they still see it is important to their research.

Many professionals in the medical community are questioning it:

Excerpt:

• 82% were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans
• only 21% would have more confidence in animal testsfor new drugs than in a battery of human-based safety tests
• 83% would support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation

Source

I am not ready to give up on HIV vaccine research. I do not believe you are offering a better alternative to the use of monkey's in this research.

Neither am I ready to give up on an HIV vaccine. I am ready to give up on a path that has been woefully inefficient, and you have yet to demonstrate that animal testing has been anything but inefficient for advancing the AIDS battle. Where are the benefits translated to humans from all this animal testing from monkeys or mice or what ever?

The alternative that I am offering is the one that has produced results. To name a few:

• Human cell tissue testing
• Epidemiological testing
• In vitro
• Microdosing

I am guessing you assume that this basic science is unnecessary.

The numbers don`t lie. Compared to what we know about AIDS as applicable to humans, we have gotten that knowledge and most drug treatments related to AIDS from means other than animal testing. If our advances in those fields have come from less recourses spent on them than animal testing, it is pretty sensible to presume that if funds were redirected to the most promising areas of research, that that would maximize results. Why are you against maximizing results by focusing on what has been proven to be the most promising procedures?

I know that both AZT and Tenofovir have been tested in animals for efficacy.

They need not have been, and the lengthy efficacy tests in animals delay drugs by up to several years, where conversely beginning with microdosing in clinical trials could speed the drugs up for marketing to 6 months and offer better safety for having used the exact model of the intended final use recipient. To add, both AZT and I am pretty sure Tenofovir, too, were developed without animals. One of my quotes above with link points that out.

However... I must acknowledge that HIV is a poor example, because it is a human-only disease. Plenty of HIV medications were tested for safety in animals, before being used in humans, but not really for efficacy. Would examples of drugs that were tested for efficacy in animals, before being tested on humans, make a difference to you?

Speaking of efficacy tests:

Excerpt:AIDS researcher Margaret Johnston has concurred: "HIV/ AIDS [animal] models have not yielded a clear correlate of immunity nor given consistent results on the potential efficacy of various vaccine approaches." Indeed, since the first HIV vaccine clinical trial in humans in 1987, more than 100 clinical trials have been funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through mid-2006. Yet every one of the more than 50 preventive vaccines and more than 30 therapeutic vaccines that were successful against HIV/AIDS in primate studies has failed in human clinical trials.

Human clinical investigation has isolated HIV, defined the disease’s natural course and identified risk factors.54 In vitro (cell and tissue culture) research using human white blood cells has identified both the efficacy and toxicity of anti-AIDS medicines, including AZT,55 3TC56 and protease inhibitors. Source

I did not say animal testing was so efficient.

It surely has not been efficient.

But, look, researchers clearly believe it is a crucial component of what they do.

I agree they do. I think they are trapped in a mental habit that has been handed down through previous researchers and their institutions and that they have financial vested interests involved in the perpetuation of the system. Some, though, are now beginning to break out of that.

Are you claiming that we have not made any advances through animal testing that we would not have already made without it?

No, I am not claiming that. I am claiming that using inefficient ways should not be persued.

Let`s look at even a bigger killer than AIDS (since you have acknowledged it is a poor example) -- cancer.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Most researchers end their reports with "promising" and "more research in larger groups of animals need to be conducted." I`ve read those phrases hundreds of times in the AIDS vaccine quest with the use of animals. If I were a scientist wanting more government funding in the form of grants, I, too, would end my reports that way. I would have a vested interest in doing so -- keeping my mortgage paid up, kids get braces, food on the table, etc...

This argument proves nothing. I have interviewed AIDS researchers multiple times. My impression is that they are genuinely dedicated to their work. I cannot prove my optimistic view any more than you can prove your cynical view. Nevertheless, I am more inclined to believe my view, that they really do seek results, and that one day they will get them.

Healthy skepticism doesn`t buy into that reasoning. Besides, there are many doctors, scientists, and researchers who do view animal testing as inefficient.

I hope you did not intend that parallel with the war to resemble sound reasoning.

I understand that some scientists agree with your point. I also get them impression that many more do not. Have you seen any polls of researchers on this issue?

* 82% were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans * only 21% would have more confidence in animal testsfor new drugs than in a battery of human-based safety tests * 83% would support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation

These are misleading numbers, because they are biased questions. I, too, would agree with the majority on these questions. Now, where are the numbers showing the majority of researchers think animal testing is unnecessary?


Regarding many of your other points, I acknowledge that HIV is a poor example, because it is a human-only disease, just like measles, smallpox, and polio.



Again, I ask, would a list of drugs whose development came from animal experiments matter to you?

I agree they do. I think they are trapped in a mental habit that has been handed down through previous researchers and their institutions and that they have financial vested interests involved in the perpetuation of the system. Some, though, are now beginning to break out of that.

Then I am left with taking your word or theirs. Your arguments seem too manipulative to me, because they depend upon generalizing from a preselected subset, to the whole. For example, you cannot generalize from HIV to all diseases, because HIV is rather unique in many characteristics.

These researchers may have vested interests, but that does not make them wrong.

Let`s look at even a bigger killer than AIDS (since you have acknowledged it is a poor example) -- cancer.

ok

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I have interviewed AIDS researchers multiple times. My impression is that they are genuinely dedicated to their work. I cannot prove my optimistic view any more than you can prove your cynical view. Nevertheless, I am more inclined to believe my view, that they really do seek results, and that one day they will get them.

Yes, they will, but in all probability not with less inefficient ways and models as compared to with efficient ways and efficient models. If they do, then that will come at an opportunity cost to other areas of research for other diseases that could use misapplied funds.

I hope you did not intend that parallel with the war to resemble sound reasoning.

I intended it to outline the poor reasoning you were putting forth.

I understand that some scientists agree with your point. I also get the impression that many more do not. Have you seen any polls of researchers on this issue?

I readily admit that those professionals who do not agree with animal testing are in a minority, but the trend of doctors and researchers speaking out against it is growing. Well respected doctors who have served in high positions are among those who speak out against it.

These are misleading numbers, because they are biased questions. I, too, would agree with the majority on these questions.

Why are they biased? Doctors and medical researchers are very intelligent. I think that with them in the entrenched establishment, they would be astute enough to know that the survey was bogus in its form and would opt to not be a party to it.

Now, where are the numbers showing the majority of researchers think animal testing is unnecessary?

The majority do think it is necessary. The majority are chasing inefficient means.

Regarding many of your other points, I acknowledge that HIV is a poor example, because it is a human-only disease, just like measles, smallpox, and polio. Again, I ask, would a list of drugs whose development came from animal experiments matter to you?

If you can show that those developments as a percentage of success in creating them has been higher than the successes and advances that have come from non animal testing. Well, can you?

These researchers may have vested interests, but that does not make them wrong.

No, but it gives them a clear motive for continuing down an inefficient path.

Moving on to cancer...

[StrongHeartsWin]

Since 1971 when Nixon declared war on cancer we still have not found a cure for it, and even worse, it seems that the tremendous funds we have been investing in that war has not been getting us much in return. Sure, we`ve cured mice of cancer, but that is where the problem is -- the cures for mice have not been translating in cures for humans -- or at least not in any efficient way considering the recourses expended on animal testing.

Even as research and treatment efforts have intensified over the past three decades and funding has soared dramatically, the annual death toll has risen 73%--over one and a half times as fast as the growth of the U.S. population. Source

[StrongHeartsWin]

It appears that Captain Chaos has abandoned the debate. Pushing on...

Here is the contradiction that animal testing rests on. To the researcher one may ask:

Why do you test on animals? Because they are like us.

Why is it ok to test on animals? Because they are not like us.

Ok.... well, Chimpanzees and Bonobos are thought to be the most like us, sharing anywhere from 95~99% of our DNA. However, they have contributed quite little to our benefit in terms of medical progress.

Captain Chaos has already conceded that they have aided little in AIDS research, but where is the benefit in research from even the larger killer of diseases -- cancer?

[Osborn F Enready]

You always, or still, seem to miss the point SHW.

Individual persons have rights, animals do not, except to the point we individually grant them as individual persons.

Laws are created to enforce animal rights, but they have obvious limitations in the rationale of most people.

Most people wouldn't view rational the thought of animal rights TRUMPING human rights, period.

Some do, its a personal choice, but not a law that would garner respect from the citizens it was forced on, nor a law that most enforcement officers would stand behind very vigourously.

I haven't bowed out of this debate because I feel beaten, its because I think your argument is so flawed its beyond conception as rational thought to most people, myself included.

I love animals, and respect them to the ability I can. That does not however give me the RIGHT to impose force on others (using law, or personal force) for not treating an animal a specific "approved" way, when the fact is our very nature was and is to some degree dependent on animals for food, as well as preventing un-necessary human death due to lack of TESTING.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You always, or still, seem to miss the point SHW.

Simply, we will agree to disagree.

... our very nature was and is to some degree dependent on animals for food,

Off topic. You know where the appropriate thread is for that.

... as well as preventing un-necessary human death due to lack of TESTING.

How efficient in recourses expended has animal testing been in preventing un-necessary human death? Btw, isn`t death always necessary in order to have a complete life? <chuckle>