I’ve read that’s what Linda McCartney did when she was diagnosed with cancer. She refused treatments which had come from animal experimentation.
She died.
Would she have lived had she used the usual treatments-- the ones which had come from experiments using animals? I don’t know, but she certainly limited her options for treatment.
SM
Yes and they discover regularly more benifits for the use of aspirin.
They also discover always more benefits in red wine.
As for the rest of your comments:
You obviously didn’t read my former posts or you have read them selectively or you choose to ignore whatever you don’t like to read.
That is OK with me. But I’m not going to repeat myself here endlessly.
Salaam. A
It depends on wether the fin could be preserved for an other consumer or not. If it is going to be rotten anyway I don’t see why I shouldn’t eat it and give the poor animal at least the honour that someone has eaten its flesh instead of it being thrown away in the trashcan.
I answered this in a former post on this thread.
My argument is that the testing is already done, the animals already died, they shall not find themselves resurrected miraculously by me ignoring the result of their pain and deaths.
On the other hand: If that company makes a profit out of me using that product, it can well lead both to the development of other products involving animal testing or to the research on methods to avoid that animal testing.
I can thus decide to take a bet on the last possibility or I can decide to ignore that opportunity.
Which one is the best reasoning, taking by all this in mind that animal testing shall go on if I buy the product or not, as long as it is not legally prohibited worldwide. Which is largely a political decision which I can eventually influence by using my right to vote in a certain country and in the EU.
Salaam. A
No, they were ignored because they were red herrings.
Aspirin and red wine do not cure neuro-degenerative disorders, AIDS or cancer, for example.
I ask one final time: Do you promise never to use medicines which have been tested on animals from now on?
SM
Please answer the following:
Why should I further bother to answer posts of a member who refuses to read my posts for what they are. And instead comes up with by himself invented “definitions” about them because at this point in the discussion that is obviously the only position that suits him (for whatever dark reason).
Salaam. A
So you are perfectly happy to take advantage of animal testing done in the past, but you want to deprive future generations of the benefit of further animal testing? I think this is far more selfish than anything I’ve posted here.
You’re only fooling yourself if you believe that. Besides, what kind of reserach is there that makes animal testing obsolete? After all the analysis and simulation is done, you either feed the pills to animals first to make sure it’s safe, or you feed it to humans. Is it somehow more “civilized” to feed it to humans first?
In fact: I wasn’t even discussing the issue “animal testing” when I made my first post on this topic.
I said I would argue the position taken by some members that animal life is less worth then human life.
But since some others jumped on that to make a conclusion that I’m also taking position in the issue of animal testing - which is a very complicated one - it is only a polite thing to do to answer also these posts.
Your assertion that I am “perfectly happy”… and so on is a bit unbalanced, no? Why should I be dancing of joy because animal testing was done in the past? It was mostly done while no other possibilities where even explored.
The rest of that comment is equally unbalanced. I’m not exactly part of the crowd that goes demonstrating against something they (for the greatest part) have no clue about.
I have very strong objections against the use of animals for testing because of the simple fact that in many cases there isn’t even interest in looking for alternatives.
And of course first of all because of the stubborn underlying idea that somehow a human is more worth then an animal, which I find an extremely arrogant attitude.
I’m also very suspicious about the methods used and as I already said: about the “benefit” (other then purely wanting to have yet an other variation to sell) in research on medications for which already a variety of similar products are developped and available.
There is in my opinion a lot of research going on to find other methods of testing.
And it may surprize you, but testing on humans is indeed done worldwide. With their knwoledge most of the time and they get payed for it. But somethimes also without them knowing, in the cases prisoners or even military personel are used.
Salaam. A
Then name one drug which went straight to human tests without any animal experiments.
scr4
I shall not give you the names because I don’t want to expose my identity on the internet, as you surely can understand.
First some info:
One of my late grandfathers was a practicing doctor/surgeon specialised on skin diseases. My late mother studied pharmacy. My late father, although never practicing - as in: being a doctor receiving patients - had also a degree in medicine.
Two products that were inventions of my late grandfather and were produced and distributed by what is still part of my business were developped without any animal testing.
They were sold in pharmacies like every other medicine. The target public being people with particular skin problems.
In a later period stricter regulations about a lot of products saw the light of political inspired and -ruled civilisation. This included a requirement for animal testing for these products that were used and worked safe and satisfactory since almost 30 years, in order to keep a valid Trade Mark to be able to sell them as medicine.
They were not tested on animals, but withdrawn from pharmacy distribution, altered a bit in the sense that they became a more fluid form and nice perfume and thrown in the Beauty Products circus. Where they still live a happy life.
So what once was very effective medication had to be degenerated to beauty products because of the so badly needed animal testing on products that had nothing left to be “proved”.
Salaam. A
Nothing left to be proved? Atropine used to be used for its cosmetic effects. Cocaine was used as a way to keep awake and alert, kind of like extra-strength coffee. Back in the 19th century, the danger of tobacco wasn’t understood. Many other drugs are the same way. Nowadays, we know their (Often severe) risks, and they are tightly controlled (Or illegal)… Despite them having “nothing left to be proved” back then, in people’s minds.
Aldebaran there is a very good reason that many of these old products have been retested, some of them have been found to have very disturbing properties and the retesting has been producing some worrying information about products that people have been using for a long time. It is important to realise once a product has been released into the market it is very difficult to spot some types of problems. For example, a common food additive that produced cancer in 1/100,000 people would be almost impossible to spot epidemiologically but it could still cause hundreds of deaths.
I really disagree with the whole survival of the fittest, medicine weakens humanity, thing. I mean apart form anything else what’s to define “fittest” anymore, the people who contribute the most to society in modern times need not be the biggest or strongest or healthiest, I mean look at Stephen Hawking.
I don’t think modern medicine really has much effect on overpopulation; the most densely populated parts of the world are often those with little access to medicine. I mean ok modern medicine helps us fight against the possibility of really big killer pandemics, but you really don’t think these are a good thing do you. Besides I don’t think these things work out like you seem to think, does “I survived the great plague because I have a rare cell surface marker combination which provided some resistance to the virus” really fit the survival of the fittest image. In addition modern transportation greatly increases the risk of a plague spreading out of control. Modern medical knowledge goes some way towards balancing this increased risk.
I also disagree with the nature vs. science debate, and I think a lot of people have a very idealised view of nature, I mean after all you could make a case that humanity and all our technology are the result of an entirely natural process. I certainly don’t see why the two have to be in opposition to each other.
I don’t believe in all this “nature will destroy the unnatural humanity thing”, life is a mindless uncaring process. I mean my view of an anthropomorphised life is as a relentless and fast moving entity always looking for a new advantage or environment to colonise and swiftly discarding anything that falls behind, my Gaia would happily see the entire planet stripped to the bedrock and every living thing on it extinguished in exchange for a chance to spread into space.
I don’t think we should respect the planet because one day the planet will rise up to destroy the human disease, I think we should respect the planet because it’s the only one we are going to get. It really is the height of arrogance to presume that we can wipe out the planet or even the life on it, but we can certainly make life very difficult for ourselves if we carry on the way we are going.
I don’t think that we should kid ourselves either that we need to save threatened species so that one day they will provide the cure for cancer or that the planet as an entity will be diminished by their loss. I think that we should save species from extinction because I would very much prefer to live on a planet that still has blue whales, poison arrow frogs, and a million kinds of beetles, I don’t see why any more motive than this is necessary.
As for animal rights, experimental animals are highly unusual in that they actually do have rights. They have a right to food, warmth, shelter, vetinary care, exercise, and ultimately a quick humane death. This might not seem much to you but it is certainly more than animals in the wild and some farmed animals and pets get, heck it’s more than some humans get. You could certainly argue that an animal would be better off in the wild, but it will certainly have more rights if it’s in a cage.
I don’t see making the comparison between the life of a family member and the life of an animal is unfair, in fact I think it’s the only fair way of doing it. People can see the value of those around them, whereas they have difficulty seeing a single human life in the statistical sense as the same thing; I sometimes think that the world would be a far better place if more people could make the connection.
That said I do find the “if you are against animal experimentation you think that animal life is more important than human life” slightly unfair. I can see how many people can believe that the human life is more important but still not believe that justifies depriving the animal of it’s life to save the human. It is also true that not all animal experimentation will save human lives. My research probably won’t save anyone’s life, although it certainly has the capacity to improve a lot of people’s quality of life, and yes make someone else an awful lot of money.
Not all research carried out on animals is in any way justifiable and this is certainly not helped by the economic pressures that scientists now work under (but that’s a whole different thread).
Where do you draw the line?
Aldebaran:
Can you answer the following question:
Where do you get the arrogance to claim that the life of plants is less a life than that of humans?
Peace
r
Getting this somewhat back on track, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of animal testing, and I wish that we didn’t have to do it. I’m EXTREMELY uncomfortable with labs using pound animals for their subjects, as I think there’s too much temptation in that system. Plus, I think that random source animals are not a particularly good test group. However, I think that at least some animal testing is necessary for medical reasons, and I will reluctantly accept this necessity.
I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic with heart & kidney failure and other health problems. I’m not HAPPY that animals died to provide information for my medical treatment, but I’m happy that the medical treatment is available to me.
As for human test subjects, I propose that we use spammers and virus writers. Possibly telemarketing agency owners, too. 
I have no problem with rats, snakes and all insects. 
And anyone who calls about changing your long distance carrier. 
This is one of the more arrogant notions still remaining in human civilization - our insistent dominion over animals for any and all purposes deemed necessary. Save for a fringe, it is almost universal that all life short of human is regarded as highly disposable and subject to any whim.
I always wonder, though, how that way of thinking is going to gel when a vastly more advanced species than ours shows up from the far reaches of the galaxy, looking for a primitive semi-sentient life form for experimental purposes. It’s easy to insist on the validity of the food chain as long as you’re on top, but it gets really interesting when you’re #2. That particular slot, I think, is where from the morality of the scenario may best be judged.
For the record, I don’t use aspirin or any drug whatsoever save perhaps for caffeine. I have also worked in a university experimental facility in the past as a janitor, and saw some stuff over a year’s time that I’d rather not describe.
I don’t agree that medical testing is a whim. This is a really painful topic and much easier for someone who doesn’t have their life or a loved ones dependent on it.
I’m sure we would be outraged and try to fight it. If we couldn’t, we would further their research.
For the record, I use a medication that I will die without. It was tested on mice or rats. I did read some of the studies. The testing they did on this drug was many years before I used it, but IMHO that doesn’t let me off the hook. Sometimes you do have to consider life span, how many people need the drug and you also have to consider peripheral factors like awareness, family, etc. I hate to spoil that cup of coffee for you, but there has been a lot of animal research done on the effects of caffeine and you have to realize all of the results don’t come from a little mouse with a buzz. They come from an autopsy. Also, because of caffeine’s interaction with other drugs, that involved additional testing. So should I assume you are a vegetarian?
I’d love to see a reputable cite saying that other humans feel the same range of emotions I do, coupled with the sense of self and perception of time necessary to appreciate those emotions to anywhere near the depth I do.
Those things are actually impossible to prove without a shred of doubt, yet I am inclined to give other humans the benefit of the doubt, based on observations and likelihood. The observations on animals and those brain scans show that animals dream, have got emotions, self-awareness and creative thoughts.
As for the OP, I am for tests on animals, but regard it as a necessary evil. There may come a time when tests on animals become obsolete, but at the moment, those tests are important to evaluate the risks and effectiveness of new medication.
Yes, but this doesn’t concern the two medicins I mentioned (who weren’t for oral use to begin with) and who were and still are composed of components where nobody ever reacted negatively on and where no research has ever found anything wrong with.
The formula of these products had/has nothing to hide, they were used over 30 years as medicin and they are in use as beauty product for about the same amount of time.
Salaam. A
ronbo
Can you answering the following question:
Where do you get the arrogance to claim that I do?
Salaam. A