Animal Tests

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Quite frankly, I could care less if a company does not have saintly, philanthropic reasons for investing its own money into a specific criteria of medical research. If they expect to generate some return of investment, then that means another company will take a liking to the proposal too, investing money of its own into the same venture. The only people losing money are the companies and human beings will be the ones to gain from the developments and discoveries afterwards: Win-win.

Why should it matter whether a company funds AIDS research in the hope of getting some return of the profits invested sometime in the future? Shouldn't the only thing that matter be the cure or treatment that comes out in the end? You also seem to think that all scientists are business men, when in actuality they are normal men, simply with the conviction to help people. Not very many scientists live the high life.

If you think these "evil" corporations shouldn't fund their research, then once again, please feel free to do a better job of funding them yourselves. Your complaints are impractical.

Another thing to note is that literally billions of dollars have been poured into AIDS research since the 1980's and we're still far from having a cure. So really, there is no immediate return of profits when it comes to medical research and very little chance of gain in most cases when it comes to diseases and such. The real reason most companies invest their money to such causes is actually because they want to appear to have a "humanitarian" image. If they appear to be "giving back" something, the public has a warmer image of them and will have an inclination towards choosing their product(s) or buying more of them. So in most cases, these companies invest money into medical research not expecting a direct return in profits, but a boost in sales and public image as a result of the contribution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You've got it the wrong way round, if they were doing aids research for profit fine, but what is happening is they are NOT doing aids researchy because there is no profit. In these areas governments should be spending to support the researchers.

Money went into it in the 80's because westerners were frightened. Now its limited mostly to Africans, who cares?

[Waychel]

Not only the government, but many individual states continue to support AIDS research and charities.

Why should companies be forced to invest their money or use it in a certain way? If they don't want to invest their money into medical science, that's their choice. You have no say over what these companies do with their money. I suppose that I should criticize you in the same way for not donating a remainder of your paycheck every month to AIDS charity?

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I'm not against medicine for profit, i'm against testing on animals for research that is driven PURELY by profit, rather trying to save lives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

you like profit now? how CAPITALISTIC of you...

there is no profit in communism...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is in regards to companies within capitalism, this isn't to do with communism.

[Impenitent]

Quote by: G. Adams, you like profit now? how CAPITALISTIC of you... there is no profit in communism...

This is in regards to companies within capitalism, this isn't to do with communism.[/quote]

the hell it isn't... if you were so gung ho communist you'd eliminate the drug companies and their profit...

you can't be a communist and like capitalist profit for some companies...

[castille]

Lets test on animal "liberators" isntead.

[G. Adams]

Imp

I don't like or dislike capitalism, it has its ups and downs, but I think communism is preferable, and inevitable.

However, this discussion was about animal testing, so I was talking about animal testing. As we live under capitalism, I was talking about animal testing in the context of capitalism.

[Impenitent]

G

you brought profit into it and the ethics of profit...

you seem to think that capitalist animal testing (for profit) which saves lives is good... everything has to do with politics

[castille]

Imp,

They are what I call "Part-time Communists".

When it suits them they become Communists.

When it doesn't suit them, they become capitalists.


(ie. Protestor whines about America and corporation, then goes home to watch corporate-made television and corporate-made computer).


The worst are anti-globalisation protestors....who use the Internet, which is the biggest global tool.

[G. Adams]

No, we would only be capitalists if we increased our wealth off the backs of others using capital. Which very few communists are, and I doubt none here are.

Damn your idiocy knows no bounds. Anti-Globalisation protestors are against the globalisation is being used by western governments and TNC's to screw over the third world. They arn't against talking, interatcting and helping people around the world.

[Pooeypants]

Can we get back on track on this topic...is it really necessary for so many topics to spiral down to patronising Communism and capitalism just because it has been mentioned? What the hell is wrong with you ppl?

/rant

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
Yes, testing animals out to see if a shampoo will sting your eyes or not is revolting, I use natural shampoo and conditioners that are non animal tested, and they work great, they also have no sulphates in them that slowly kill your hair.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Personally, I refuse to use a product that is advertised as 'not tested on animals.' If they don't test it on animals, then they are not taking enough precautions -- I argue that they should not be allowed to sell it for human use.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,)
er.. if you notice, the original question was about medical testing on animals, presumably referring to drug tests and development.

I suggest what it then comes down to is which you find worse from a "purely emotive" view; avoidable deaths of humans or deaths of lab animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

And what are the alternatives? The only reasonable one I can think of is: test the medicines, and products, on animal-right activists instead of on nonhuman animals.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

And what are the alternatives? The only reasonable one I can think of is: test the medicines, and products, on animal-right activists instead of on nonhuman animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Samildanach]

While I am sympathetic to the plight of your animal friends used in drug testing I see no alternative cheap source of testing models available.

[Freedom2BHeard]

I have first hand experience on a secret place in South San Francisco run by Genentech Medical. For years we were sworn secrecy of the place. Mostly we weren't allowed to see the animals other than the small rodents, but on occasion, we saw the alligators, monkeys, apes. And I can tell you, looking in ones eys that was injected with HIV virus or other tests, you can feel the pain they go through. They look to communicate, and several times I was tempted to let the public know they were there. But then, would that stop them? No.. because deep down inside, not enough people really care..

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Freedom2BHeard,)
I have first hand experience on a secret place in South San Francisco run by Genentech Medical. For years we were sworn secrecy of the place. Mostly we weren't allowed to see the animals other than the small rodents, but on occasion, we saw the alligators, monkeys, apes. And I can tell you, looking in ones eys that was injected with HIV virus or other tests, you can feel the pain they go through. They look to communicate, and several times I was tempted to let the public know they were there. But then, would that stop them? No.. because deep down inside, not enough people really care..<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Sometimes we can't gain without sacrifice, do honestly want to tell me you don't want a vaccine or cure for HIV?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Great thread! Just found it. I am resurecting it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Professionals in the medical field, too, are coming to realize animal testing is not justified and are beginning to point out all that is wrong with it. Besides the moral arguments which they do not ignore, they often base their opinion on the data.

Looking at Cardiovascular Disease, of the 700 drugs tested in animal models from 4,000 studies, all 150 drugs that have gone through animal testing and made it to human testing have failed in clinical trial.

Excerpt:
A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, 2006

For example, artifact from unnaturally induced strokes in an-
imals has repeatedly misled researchers. Macleod et al. reported on over 4,000 studies demonstrating efficacy for more than 700 drugs in animal models of stroke. About 150 drugs subsequently tested in human clinical trials failed to show any benefit. Only recombinant human tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) administered within three hours of stroke onset has proven beneficial in reducing symptoms, but it was associated with ten times as many intracerebral hemorrhages and did not increase survival.

David Wiebers et al. have concluded:

"Ultimately, the answers to many of our questions regarding the underlying pathophysiology and treatment of stroke do not lie with continued attempts to model the human situation more perfectly in animals, but rather with the development of techniques to enable the study of more basic metabolism, pathophysiology and anatomical imaging detail in living humans."

-- Medical Research Modernization Committee, pg. 10

Source Link Here.

Non-human animals are inefficient, and innacurate (often misleading and dangerous with devastating results) models for treating diseases in humans -- and in this case cardiovascular disease. If society is concerned about lessening the impact of diseases and decreasing them as much as possible, then those large recourses (i.e. money, time, and effort) directed toward heart disease would be better spent not on causing animals to get fat, have strokes and heart attacks, but rather on prevention through orienting and educating the public on what we know that works and putting that knowledge into action (i.e. diet, exercise and healthy lifesyles).

There is no reason for a pig to have to give up its heart or valve because someone smoked, sat on the sofa, and ate hamburgers for large periods of their life. We already have the knowledge that lifestyles are the determinant factor in heart disease. Preventive Action/Treatment is where funds should go and they need not go to those who train-wrecked their bodies out of their own desire or lack of discipline.

[G. Adams]

I would like to retract all statements by me in this thread, expecially the communist rantings. I am reformed and rehabilitated into normal society again.

While none-animal testing is very much preferable, animal testing for medical research is often unavoidable. As long as this persists, animal testing must be allowed to continue.

Oh, but I will still save the dog off the cliff first if it's MY dog.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams While none-animal testing is very much preferable, animal testing for medical research is often unavoidable.

When recources can be better used to affect a net total of more people positively, and if the goal of science and medicine is to save as many people as possible, then that thing (in this case animal testing) IS avoidable due to alternative choices yeilding larger numbers saved due to alternative testing practices being available -- then in fact it would be a professional and moral duty to avoid animal testing if those recources could be applied more efficiently with greater results in the aggregate.