Alternatives to Animal testing.

[dreama]

I have. One is a charitable website. One provides a position paper. I even read some of the so called "scientific" articles that were listed on the charitable website. Would not stand up to the scrutiny of a professional, I can guarantee you.

You have proven nothing. You have to provide fact, statistics, data, hard science to prove a point such as the one you are attempting to make. Let's see some hard medical evidence. So far all you have provided is a bunch of bleeding heart websites attempting to gain paid membership so they can stay afloat. That is proof only of the fact that the gullible still exist.

Can YOU provide hard facts to prove that torturing animals has done anything other then increased animal AND HUMAN suffering?

 

[Hwy99]

I think human volunteers in trials are paid. Although unfortunately they are sometimes misled to believe the tests are safer then they are because they were tested on animals first.

Unfortunately things that have worked ok in animals do not work at all in human trials.

All drugs, before they can be sold, are subject to human trials. This is after animal trials has been done to develop and refine the medications and make sure that it is relatively safe for humans. Many drugs are tested in a double blind study where the volunteers have the disease the drug is being tested for, and most of these people are paid a small amount. Usually to cover time and travel expenses.

There are other experimental treatments that are available only at the hospital where they are being developed. Someone, for instance, who has a cancer that has not responded to conventional treatment, and the patient is dying will sometimes be offered the opportunity to engage in an experimental treatment. However, the restrictions for these are tight. And always, always, the individual has to be able to give fully informed consent for participation.

Ohh now I got it, thank you both

 

[dreama]

the danger of relying on animal experiments is most vividly illustrated by the growing list of animal-tested drugs which are withdrawn or restricted because of unexpected, often fatal, side-effects in people. Examples include Eraldin, Opren, chloramphenicol, clioquinol, Flosint, Ibufenac and Zelmid (Sharpe 1988). Apart from drug withdrawal or restriction, unexpected reactions may lead to warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the medical press (Sharpe 1988). In the case ICI's heart drug, Eraldin, there were serious eye problems, including blindness, and there were 23 deaths.
Ultimately ICI compensated more than 1000 victims (Office of Health Economics 1980). Yet animal experiments had given no warning of the dangers (Inman 1977) and even after the drug was withdrawn in 1976 the harmful effects could not be reproduced in laboratory animals (Weatherall 1982). The antibiotic chloramphenicol, passed safe after animal experiments, was later discovered to cause aplastic anemia, which often proved fatal (Venning 1983).
The British Medical Journal (1952) reports how the drug was thoroughly tested on animals, producing nothing worse than transient anemia in dogs given the drug for long periods by injection, and nothing at all when given orally. Scientists have recently suggested the use of human bone-marrow cells as a more reliable means of detecting such toxic effects prior to clinical trials (Gyte and Williams 1985).
In 1982 the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Opren, was withdrawn in Britain after 3500 reports of side-effects including 61 deaths mainly through liver damage (British Medical Journal, 1982). Prolonged tests in rhesus monkeys, in which the animals received up to seven times the maximum tolerated human dose for a year, revealed no evidence of toxicity (Dista Products Ltd 1980). Furthermore, animal tests cited in the company's literature make no mention of the photosensitive skins reactions which proved such a problem for patients (Dista Products Ltd 1980).
During the 1960's at least 3500 young asthmatics died in Britain following the use of isoprenaline aerosol inhalers (Inman 1980). Isoprenaline is a powerful asthma drug and deaths were reported in countries using a particularly concentrated form of aerosol which delivered 0,4mg of drug per spray (Stolley 1972). Animal tests had shown that a large doses increased the heart rate but not sufficiently to kill the animals. In fact cats could tolerate 175 times the dose found dangerous to asthmatics (Collins, et al., 1969).
Even after the event it proved difficult to reproduce the drug's harmful effects in animals (Carson, et al., 1971). Japan suffered a major epidemic of drug-induced disease in the case of clioquinol, the main ingredient of Ciba Geigy's antidiarrhoea drugs, Enterovioform and Maxaform (Lancet, 1977a). At least 10,000 people were victims of a new disease called SMON (subacute myelo-optic neuropathy), yet animal experiments carried out by the company revealed 'no evidence that clioquinol is neurotoxic' (Hess, et al., 1972).
Reliance in animal tests can therefore be dangerously misleading. In fact, what protection there is comes mainly from clinical trials where 95% of the drug passed safe and effective on the basis of animal tests are rejected (Medical World News, 1965). Nevertheless the problem appears less serious than it is, because side-effects are grossly under-reported (Lesser 1980): only about a dozen of the 3500 deaths linked with isoprenaline aerosol were reported by doctors at the time, while 11% of fatal reactions associated with anti-inflammatory drugs, phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone, were reported as such (Inman 1980).
Most adverse reactions which can occur in patients cannot be demonstrated, anticipated or avoided by the routine subacute and chronic toxicity experiment (Zbinden 1966). This is partly because animals do not have the potential to predict some of the most common or life-threatening effects (Welch 1967). For instance animals cannot tell us if they are suffering from nausea, dizziness, amnesia, headache, depression or other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, skin lesions, some blood disorders and many central nervous system effects are some of the more serious problems which once again cannot generally be demonstrated in animals. But even when such effects are excluded, toxicity tests can still prove misleading.
In 1962, the side-effects of six different drugs, reported during clinical practice, were compared with those originally seen in toxicity tests with rats and dogs (Litchfield 1962). The comparisons were restricted to those tests which animals have the potential to predict. Even so, of the 78 adverse reactions seen in patients, the majority (42) were not predicted in animal tests. In most cases, then, predictions based on animal experiments proved incorrect.
Another comparison this time based on 45 drugs, revealed that at best only one out of every four side-effects predicted by animal experiments actually occurred in patients (Fletcher 1978). Even then it is not possible to tell which predictions are accurate until human trials are commenced. Furthermore the report confirmed that many common side-effects cannot be predicted by animal tests at all: examples include nausea, headache, sweating, cramps, dry mouth, dizziness, and in some cases skin lesions and reduced blood pressure. But this study has an additional implication.
With most of the adverse reactions predicted by animal experiments not occurring in people, there is also the danger of unnecessarily rejecting potentially valuable medicines. A classic example is penicillin which, as Florey (1953) admitted, would in all probability have been discarded had it been tested on guinea-pigs, to whom it is highly toxic (Koppanyi and Avery 1966). But the good fortune did not end there. In order to save a seriously ill patient, Fleming wanted to inject penicillin into the spine but the possible results were unknown. Florey tried the experiment with a cat but there wasn't time to wait for the results if Fleming's patient was to have a chance. Fleming's patient received his injection and improved, but Florey's cat died (BBC 1981)!
Another case is digitalis. Although discovered without animal experiments, its more widespread use was delayed because tests on animals incorrectly predicted a dangerous rise in blood pressure (Beddow Bayly 1962). One of the most common animals used in toxicity tests is the rat, yet comparisons with humans reveal major differences in skin characteristics, respiratory parameters, the location of gut flora, B-glucurondase activity, plasma protein binding, biliary excretion, metabolism, allergic hypersensitivity and teratogenicity (Calabrese 1984).
Differences in respiratory parameters are particularly important in inhalation studies, where rats are used extensively. As 'high-risk' animal models used for respiratory and cardiovascular problems, rats are considered inappropriate for asthma, bronchitis and arteriosclerosis, but the species of choice for hypertension (Calabrese 1984). In fact the species most routinely used for toxicological studies are chosen not on consideration of their phylogenetic relationship to humans but on practical grounds of cost, breeding rate, litter size, ease of handling, resistance to intercurrent infections and laboratory tradition (Davies 1977).
One of the most important factors resulting in differences between the species is the speed and pattern of metabolism. Indeed reports show that variations in drug biotransformation are the rule rather than the exception (Levine 1978, Smith and Caldwell 1977, Zbinden 1963). Toxic drug effects which are not predicted by animal test may be seen in people when their metabolism is slower, resulting in longer exposure. But differences in the rate of biotransformation are only one aspect of the metabolic comparison. Of even greater importance is the route of metabolism.
Species variability here can result in poisonous effects which it would be impossible to predict by animal tests. A comparative study of 23 chemicals showed that in only four cases did rats and humans metabolise drugs in the same way (Smith and Caldwell 1977). One example is amphetamone, which is metabolised by the same route in humans, dogs and mice (although faster in the mouse) but by a different pathway in the rat and by still another route in the guinea-pig (Levine 1978).
These difficulties once again stress the need to assess new drugs in volunteers as early as possible. Bernard Brodie of Bethesda' National Heart Institute has stated (Brodie 1962): 'These problems highlight the importance for drug development of testing a drug in man as soon as possible to see whether its rate of metabolism makes it clinically practical. The practice of studying the physiological disposition of a drug in man may only after it is clearly the drug of choice in animals not only may prove shortsighted and time consuming, but also may result in relegating the best drug for man to the shelf for evermore'.

The Failure of Vivisection

 

[jillio]

No, I'm afraid that's where you are mistaken. Medical reasearch has advanced DESPITE animal testing. NOT because of.

Why is your point of view more valid then mine. It is just mindlessly repeating the claims made by vivisectionists.

Yes, we have advanced in the last 120 years but this isn't down to animal testing. Humans have been tested since then and other methods have been created too so I'm afraid your logic is completely false.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

 

[jillio]

The Failure of Vivisection

Got anything recent? You are relying on information from 5o years ago in many instances. Move forward, dreama, step into the 21st century.

 

[dreama]

(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.




References
(1)Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p6.
(2)'Animal toxicity studies: Their relevance to man', Lumley/Warner (Eds).
(3)SmithKline Beecham Internal report.
(4)Dr Vernon Coleman, 'Why Patients Never Win In Drugs Wars'.
(5)Ethical Consumer, Nov/Dec 1995, p24.
(6)Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p103.
(7)F. J. Di Carlo, 'Drug Metabolism Reviews' 15, pp409-13, quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p44.
(8)NAVS Campaigner, Jan/Feb 1988, p13.
(9)Prof Dennis Park, advice to WHO, speaking at Humane Research Trust Convention: quoted in 'Animals In Research' leaflet, Advocates for Animals.
(10)Pietro Croce Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, p43.
(11)E. J. Calabrese, 'Toxic susceptability: Male/female differences', quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p41.
(12)Laboratory Animals, vol.26 no.3, p159, quoted Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p33.
(13)Parke/Smith (eds), Drug Metabolism from Microbe to Man, quoted Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p45.
(14)AVA leaflet 'We can't change the past'.
(15)Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, pp22-24.
(16)'Access Denied' report, NAVS.
(17)Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34, 1969, quoted in Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p365.
(18)Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34, 1969, quoted in Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p365.
(19)Dr Vernon Coleman, 'Animal experiments kill people as well as animals'.
(20)Hans Ruesch, quoted in BAVA leaflet, 'After prolonged tests'.
(21)National Health Federation Bulletin, 1969.
(22)D. Icke, 'It doesn't have to be like this'.
(23)Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress, pp.12,91.
(24)Congress of Clinical Medicine, 1976. PC p14.
(25)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, pp175/6.
(26)Dr Hadwen 'The difficulties of Deguerre, p357. General Anaesthesia, Gray/Utting/Nunn, p152.
(27)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p364. 'Cancer', NAVS Campaigner Jan/Feb 1988. Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p9.
(28)Hans Ruesch Slaughter of the Innocents, p361-362.
(29)Plan 2000, 'How much longer'.
(30)VIN Newsletter 2.
(31)Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science - A Choice to Make, p22-24.
(32)Plan 2000 leaflet.
(33)Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, p101.



The above was taken from VIN Newsletter 4
Produced by V.I.N., P O Box 223, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 5ZU.
Email: vivisectionkills@hotmail.com

33 Facts To Be Considered

 

[dreama]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

This has got nothing to do with fairy tales. You are distorting everything I say. If you actually READ my links properly you would see that they are logic and you and the vivisectionists ARENT.

And by the way Non animal testing IS moving into the 21st section.

You wonder why It's taken me so long to answer your question. Because I rarely read your posts these days. You just want to be proved right and you really don't care about logic.

These are views not from PETA but from Doctor's and Scientists. If you'd bothered to read ALL my links you would know but obviously you haven't. Non of my links are from PETA and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links.

You haven't produced any facts yourself. Hard or otherwise. Just parrotting vivisectionist talk. That's not fact. That's fiction and fairy tales.

 

[jillio]

33 Facts To Be Considered

I asked for hard science, dreama. You do know what that is, don't you?

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove that with with hard scientific fact.

And you are mindlessly repeating what the bleeding heart PETA 30 watts tell you without ever taking the time to think critically about what you are saying. It sounds all noble and good, so you repeat it. Think about it for a change.

My view isn't more valid than yours, except that your view is based largely on fiction and fairy tale, and mine is based on science. When it comes to medical treatment, most will choose science over fairy tale. Even though it doesn't always sounds as nice.

Got that right. Medical Science saved my life. If it wasn't for the advances of medical science through animal experimentation, I would not be here. You cannot make me an more of a supporter than I am already; and you sure as hell aren't gonna sway me from what I believe.

 

[jillio]

This has got nothing to do with fairy tales. You are distorting everything I say. If you actually READ my links properly you would see that they are logic and you and the vivisectionists ARENT.

And by the way Non animal testing IS moving into the 21st section.

You wonder why It's taken me so long to answer your question. Because I rarely read your posts these days. You just want to be proved right and you really don't care about logic.

These are views not from PETA but from Doctor's and Scientists. If you'd bothered to read ALL my links you would know but obviously you haven't. Non of my links are from PETA and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links.

You haven't produced any facts yourself. Hard or otherwise. Just parrotting vivisectionist talk. That's not fact. That's fiction and fairy tales.

Okay, dreama. You say that medical science has not been advanced by animal experimentation and study. Let's take a look at this little scientific fact:

Researchers have managed to grow a human ear on the back of a mouse through gene manipulation. This provides the knowledge and the skill to reproduce human organs and body parts that are lost to disease and accident. In fact, they can now grow, thanks to research of this type, a human bladder that can be used for transplantation purposes. Would you be willing to let them grow an ear on your back to further this type of advance that has the potential to help millions people? Then we could save all the sweet little mice.

Or, what about heart transplant...a procedure that saves thousands of lives every year. The first heart transplants were done in primates. The first heart transplant done in a human was using a baboon heart. As a consequence of this research, we have now perfected the procedure and are able to keep death from claiming thousands a year.

You really do need to inform yourself of the facts and stop reading the fairy tales you find in the bleeding heart websites.

And I care very much about logic. That is why I am compelled to point out the lack of logic in your thought process. I keep hoping that one day, the light bulb will go on.

 

[jillio]

Got that right. Medical Science saved my life. If it wasn't for the advances of medical science through animal experimentation, I would not be here. You cannot make me an more of a supporter than I am already; and you sure as hell aren't gonna sway me from what I believe.

And there are millions more who owe their lives to animal research and the advances it has fostered.

 

[jillio]

Can YOU provide hard facts to prove that torturing animals has done anything other then increased animal AND HUMAN suffering?

See post #30, and read a few of OB's personal experiences with such. That will get you off to a good start.

 

[jillio]

This has got nothing to do with fairy tales. You are distorting everything I say. If you actually READ my links properly you would see that they are logic and you and the vivisectionists ARENT.

And by the way Non animal testing IS moving into the 21st section.

You wonder why It's taken me so long to answer your question. Because I rarely read your posts these days. You just want to be proved right and you really don't care about logic.

These are views not from PETA but from Doctor's and Scientists. If you'd bothered to read ALL my links you would know but obviously you haven't. Non of my links are from PETA and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links.

You haven't produced any facts yourself. Hard or otherwise. Just parrotting vivisectionist talk. That's not fact. That's fiction and fairy tales.

I said PETA-like. You do know the difference, don't you? If not I'll be glad to explain it to you.

 

[Jiro]

And there are millions more who owe their lives to animal research and the advances it has fostered.

including your life, dreama.... your life.... all thanks to medical knowledge and advancement from animal research...

 

[Oceanbreeze]

See post #30, and read a few of OB's personal experiences with such. That will get you off to a good start.

I really wish she would, but I know better.

Oh well. I'm going to bed. I've got an appt to keep tomorrow.

Good night all.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

including your life, dreama.... your life.... all thanks to medical knowledge and advancement from animal research...

Yup.

 

[Jiro]

No, I'm afraid that's where you are mistaken. Medical reasearch has advanced DESPITE animal testing. NOT because of.

Why is your point of view more valid then mine. It is just mindlessly repeating the claims made by vivisectionists.

you have CONTINUED to fail to provide us examples of medical research being advanced without animal testing.

Yes, we have advanced in the last 120 years but this isn't down to animal testing. Humans have been tested since then and other methods have been created too so I'm afraid your logic is completely false.

can you list me cases of medical advancement being done without animal testing in the last 120 years? No do not give me any links. Say it in your own words.

I'm having hard time believing that our medical knowledge will progress without animal research. Please educate me. I'm not interested in links. Convince me with your own words.

 

[Aleser]

This is totally and completely innaccurate. Fully informed consent is required for participation in any clinical trial. Failure to obtain fully informed consent leaves the researcher open to legal prosecution, ethics violations, and loss of license.

I've been in many trials, and from when I was old enough to understand what risks are, they were explained to me, even if I was still young enough that my parents wee the ones consenting to my participation.

Pay ranges from very small amounts to cover local travel and parking to in the high hundreds for a study that required a short hospital stay.

As much as I'm all for advancing understanding of my disease (and the relevant treatments that have added thirty four YEARS to my life!), and as much as I don't mind the additional income and free medication, I would NEVER participate in any drug trial that involved a drug not already tested on animals- and I'm pretty sure almost all humans who have actually been in a trial would agree with me.

You go into it knowing there are risks and maybe you'll be the reason they discover the worst of them, but there is still some basis establishing a relative safety. That's very different from blindly stumbling into a drug or treatment without any sort of background.

And, on note of comments about how heart transplants would not have come to be, nobody would survive a transplant for very long without animal testing. Cyclosporin was tested on animals first, not humans. Without it, transplants would be a very short-lived savior.

I'm proud to be a vegan, but I'm not giving up my very good life for this cause. I'm walking because of animal testing. That is a reality, and you piss on it by saying animal testing doesn't matter. It matters to me, because without it, the only thing I'd be right now is what was left of a children's size casket.

 

[jillio]

I've been in many trials, and from when I was old enough to understand what risks are, they were explained to me, even if I was still young enough that my parents wee the ones consenting to my participation.

Pay ranges from very small amounts to cover local travel and parking to in the high hundreds for a study that required a short hospital stay.

As much as I'm all for advancing understanding of my disease (and the relevant treatments that have added thirty four YEARS to my life!), and as much as I don't mind the additional income and free medication, I would NEVER participate in any drug trial that involved a drug not already tested on animals- and I'm pretty sure almost all humans who have actually been in a trial would agree with me.

You go into it knowing there are risks and maybe you'll be the reason they discover the worst of them, but there is still some basis establishing a relative safety. That's very different from blindly stumbling into a drug or treatment without any sort of background.

And, on note of comments about how heart transplants would not have come to be, nobody would survive a transplant for very long without animal testing. Cyclosporin was tested on animals first, not humans. Without it, transplants would be a very short-lived savior.

I'm proud to be a vegan, but I'm not giving up my very good life for this cause. I'm walking because of animal testing. That is a reality, and you piss on it by saying animal testing doesn't matter. It matters to me, because without it, the only thing I'd be right now is what was left of a children's size casket.

Excellent post, Aleser. I thank you for sharing your first hand experience on this matter. I have absolutely no objection to those who chose a Vegan lifestyle, whether it be for health concerns or for ethical concerns. As a matter of fact, I admire the dedication it takes to adhere to a Vegan diet. My problem is with those who use a personal choice to dedicate themselves to a Vegan lifestyle to protest against those procedures that can and do save lives and improve quality of life for millions. Especially when they claim that the Vegan diet is far healthier, and then deny the opportunity to achieve greater health to others through protest of proper scientific testing of medications and procedures. I certainly don't object to the ethical principles behind the Vegan choice. What I object to is the distortion of those ethical principles that would require sacrificing human life in favor of protecting animal life.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I've been in many trials, and from when I was old enough to understand what risks are, they were explained to me, even if I was still young enough that my parents wee the ones consenting to my participation.

Pay ranges from very small amounts to cover local travel and parking to in the high hundreds for a study that required a short hospital stay.

As much as I'm all for advancing understanding of my disease (and the relevant treatments that have added thirty four YEARS to my life!), and as much as I don't mind the additional income and free medication, I would NEVER participate in any drug trial that involved a drug not already tested on animals- and I'm pretty sure almost all humans who have actually been in a trial would agree with me.

You go into it knowing there are risks and maybe you'll be the reason they discover the worst of them, but there is still some basis establishing a relative safety. That's very different from blindly stumbling into a drug or treatment without any sort of background.

And, on note of comments about how heart transplants would not have come to be, nobody would survive a transplant for very long without animal testing. Cyclosporin was tested on animals first, not humans. Without it, transplants would be a very short-lived savior.

I'm proud to be a vegan, but I'm not giving up my very good life for this cause. I'm walking because of animal testing. That is a reality, and you piss on it by saying animal testing doesn't matter. It matters to me, because without it, the only thing I'd be right now is what was left of a children's size casket.

I have an immense amount of respect for you.

I, too, would not be alive without the advances of medical science.