Alternatives to Animal testing.

[jillio]

This is the article I read. I had no problem believing it because the big animal testing charities did not lift a finger to help mother when she was dying of cancer. They were too busy with their scedule of torturing animals. As I said it made me feel very very angry. To think people were making money out of mother's suffering and claiming she was cured 3 times, and promising new cancer cures that are yet to come on the market.

I've said it before, and will say it again. Animal testing had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your mother had to wait for medical treatment. You are misdirecting your anger toward your mother's death. You really do need to get help with your issues regarding your mother's death. Your anger is placing you in the position of being totally illogical regarding testing procedures.

But, given the fact that you keep making this statement: What exactly do you think the researchers should have done?

 

[Jiro]

Chemo and radiation doesn't cure cancer. I believe some people use that method on dogs if they can afford it but I don't think many vets would use that method on a rat and I wouldn't be interested in subjecting my rat to it even if it was.

My mum had radiation and Chemo therapy. She still died after only 4 years.

The only sure way of curing cancer is if you catch it really early and they manage to give you a hysterectomy or remove breast, eye, leg or other body part that the cancer is. That only works if the cancer is in a body part that can be safely removed and it hasnt spread past the limit. They did operate on mum but the cancer had spread too much due to the fact that it had been left too long.

If you catch the cancer at the stage where it's still contained in one place that can safely be removed they also can be cured but that is only in the early stages.

I know of a few people who survived cancer by operation in early stage but don't know anyone who survived cancer after it had been left for too long. It seems most people in that situation has already died.

By the way, I heard the person who originally invented Chemo originally tested this method on herself. Don't ask me for a link. It's just something I remember but I've no idea from where. I think it was Marie Curie who did that? Again I can't remember any more details.

Curing the cancer is not a surefire technique. Chemo is not really designed to cure cancer but to reduce it to harmless level so that you can live longer. and yes it will come again. maybe not. In fact - there's no such a thing as cure. Medicine is simply an "aid," It aids your immune system in fighting off the foreign hosts. Think of medicine as giving better guns and body armors for your soldiers (white cells). Vaccination teaches your soldiers how to fight effectively against specific foreign host as part of preparation.

If there's a cure, then we would never be sick of same illness twice.... such as cold and infection. Again - medicine aids your immune system to fight the foreign host inside your body but medicine cannot fight the illness itself. We will continue to get sick/infected and get better until we die.

 

[dreama]

So you're saying that the scientists are so focused on animal testing which "doesn't work" that they don't spend time on the other methods, therefore possibly delaying cures? Which is why your mother would still be alive because a cure would have been found by now if we didn't waste all that time in animal testing? Is this right, dreama?

Yes that's right. Youve got it at last. That's exactly what I mean. Millions go into animal testing. If Millions went into finding alternatives then we would have found a cure for cancer. Even in the later stages. Since they didn't catch mom's cancer soon enough to simply remove it with a hysteractomy.
After she died I wanted a hysterectomy done on me as a precautionarly measure but my doctor wouldn't agree to it.

The problem is we do NOT have the technology to do that yet. Also, a piece of the puzzle to find cures is stem cells research and right now people are getting upset about that. Can't please everyone, can we?

The tecnology is there. It's just the funds that aren't. People against abortion don't want embryotic stem cells to be used in research. They have nothing agianst Adult stem cells beign used and it seems there is now a way of making adult stem cells act like embyotic stem cells. So I've heard. I'd be happy to donate my own stem cells for reaserach or my blood but that has been refused. So I just donate money to non animal testing charities instead.

As for reading the other side. I've tried but it either depresses me, makes me want to throw up, or tear up the offending material only you can't do that on a computer can you.

Their are actually 3 sides to this.

1. Believe that Animal testing has never benifited anybody so should be scrapped.
2. Believe that Animal testing may have been of beifit in the past but is now being over used.
3. Believe their should be no limits on animal testing. The more money squandered on torturing animals the better. Unfortunately the british government falls into this camp. I've got a lot of letters from the british governent to tis affect in responce to the ones that I sent them.

 

[dreama]

Curing the cancer is not a surefire technique. Chemo is not really designed to cure cancer but to reduce it to harmless level so that you can live longer. and yes it will come again. maybe not. In fact - there's no such a thing as cure. Medicine is simply an "aid," It aids your immune system in fighting off the foreign hosts. Think of medicine as giving better guns and body armors for your soldiers (white cells). Vaccination teaches your soldiers how to fight effectively against specific foreign host as part of preparation.

If there's a cure, then we would never be sick of same illness twice.... such as cold and infection. Again - medicine aids your immune system to fight the foreign host inside your body but medicine cannot fight the illness itself. We will continue to get sick/infected and get better until we die.

That's true. Unfortunatly nobody esplained this to me when mother was said to be 'cured' of cancer. Just for it to keep coming back. I don't know why they kept anoucning her to be 'cured' then putting her on waiting lists when her cancer came back. My dad even suggested to her that she looked int arthiris when the cancer returned for the 3rd time and spread to her bones. I don't believe anybody known to have cancer should be put on a waiting list.

 

[jillio]

Yes that's right. Youve got it at last. That's exactly what I mean. Millions go into animal testing. If Millions went into finding alternatives then we would have found a cure for cancer. Even in the later stages. Since they didn't catch mom's cancer soon enough to simply remove it with a hysteractomy.
After she died I wanted a hysterectomy done on me as a precautionarly measure but my doctor wouldn't agree to it.

You are second guessing the doctors and can't be sure of anything. If millions had not gone into animal testing, your mother would havelikely died much sooner.

Of course the doctor would not give you a hysterectomy. There was no valid medical reason to do so. He saw that your request was based on an emotional over reaction to your mother's death and did what he should have done. Stopped you from doing harm to yourself.
The tecnology is there. It's just the funds that aren't. People against abortion don't want embryotic stem cells to be used in research. They have nothing agianst Adult stem cells beign used and it seems there is now a way of making adult stem cells act like embyotic stem cells. So I've heard. I'd be happy to donate my own stem cells for reaserach or my blood but that has been refused. So I just donate money to non animal testing charities instead.

The technology is not there, yet. And the funds are being put into the research to advance technology. Abortion doesn't have anything to do with embryonic stem cell research. And, again, we have just recently begun to be able to regress adult cells back to the stem cell stage. If you will read the article about the woman who received a transplant thanks to this new technology, you will learn a bit about regression of adult stem cells.
As for reading the other side. I've tried but it either depresses me, makes me want to throw up, or tear up the offending material only you can't do that on a computer can you.

Their are actually 3 sides to this.

1. Believe that Animal testing has never benifited anybody so should be scrapped.
2. Believe that Animal testing may have been of beifit in the past but is now being over used.
3. Believe their should be no limits on animal testing. The more money squandered on torturing animals the better. Unfortunately the british government falls into this camp. I've got a lot of letters from the british governent to tis affect in responce to the ones that I sent them.

Now see what you have done. The first 2 statements are nuetral. Your third statement however, is extremely inflammatory and judgemental based on your own distorted view. Had you stopped with "Believe there should be no limits on animal testing" you would have had some credibility. But you had to turn even that into a judgement based on your belief system. You really have a lot to learn about not passing judgement.

 

[Babyblue]

Any doctor in their right mind would tell a cancer patient that they are cleared of cancer. Their is always a high chance of it coming back. I think the word is " remission." not sure of spelling.

 

[jillio]

Any doctor in their right mind would tell a cancer patient that they are cleared of cancer. Their is always a high chance of it coming back. I think the word is " remission." not sure of spelling.

Exactly.

 

[Hear Again]

Any doctor in their right mind would tell a cancer patient that they are cleared of cancer. Their is always a high chance of it coming back. I think the word is " remission." not sure of spelling.

yes, that's true babyblue. and you're right. the correct word for what you've described is "remission."

 

[Babyblue]

My uncle is into his 5th year.
Cancer survivor.
He is still monitored by Doctors. They told him he still have a possibility of remission.
He survived liver, lung and prostate cancer. We did not think he would make it. But here he is 5 years later mean as ever. LOL.

They took out one lung, part of his liver and his prostates.

He did the whole nine yards of chemotherapy and a line off medication. So I am VERY thankful of animal testing.

 

[Hear Again]

My uncle is into his 5th year.
Cancer survivor.
He is still monitored by Doctors. They told him he still have a possibility of remission.
He survived liver, lung and prostate cancer. We did not think he would make it. But here he is 5 years later mean as ever. LOL.

They took out one lung, part of his liver and his prostates.

He did the whole nine yards of chemotherapy and a line off medication. So I am VERY thankful of animal testing.

wow, babyblue. that's great!

as you may know, my mother had pancreatic cancer, but by the time it was diagnosed, it had already invaded 95% of her body. from the time of her diagnosis, she only survived 5 months (the average time of survival between diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and death is 6 months). she refused chemo and wanted to "go home" when g*d said it was time. she also had skin cancer earlier in her life which she survived.

 

[Babyblue]

wow, babyblue. that's great!

as you may know, my mother had pancreatic cancer, but by the time it was diagnosed, it had already invaded 95% of her body. from the time of her diagnosis, she only survived 5 months (the average time of survival between diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and death is 6 months). she refused chemo and wanted to "go home" when g*d said it was time. she also had skin cancer earlier in her life which she survived.

Thanks


Sorry to hear about your Mom.

Yeah usually when someone is dianosed with pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer it is almost too late. Usually when cancer hits the glands it is already throughout the body.

 

[Daredevel7]

I do think animal testing should be phased out at some point, perhaps we are at the brink of technology that allows us to start this process.

However, I believe animal testing over the years has brought a tremendous amount of benefits because it was the best option at the time. Dreama is assuming that in the past century, we had the "technology" for computer modeling (which btw is BASED MOSTLY on animal testing and very little on human testing) and stem cell research. So dreama, while I understand why we need to start rethinking about animal testing due to new technology, I think your understandable anger from your mother's death has caused harsh judgments on animal testing. And it scared me a little that you requested for a hysterectomy. That speaks volumes. I don't know you nor am I a professional or anything but based on your posts, it may be good to talk/vent to someone about what's happened to your mother.

 

[dreama]

Any doctor in their right mind would tell a cancer patient that they are cleared of cancer. Their is always a high chance of it coming back. I think the word is " remission." not sure of spelling.

Maybe my mother's doctors weren't in their right mind them?

 

[jillio]

Maybe my mother's doctors weren't in their right mind them?

They told your mother she was "cured"? You actually witnessed this conversation where the docs told your mum she was cured?

 

[dreama]

it scared me a little that you requested for a hysterectomy. That speaks volumes. I don't know you nor am I a professional or anything but based on your posts, it may be good to talk/vent to someone about what's happened to your mother.

Well I was scared, and still am. I'm afraid if I get something terminal it might kill me before the NHS did anything about it. Sorry if it sounds awfully Hypocondirac. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I've got anything terminal. At least I hope not but if It happened later on I'm afraid that I don't stand a chance.

I still wouldn't mind getting a hysterectomy as it would be one fatal illness less to worry about.

 

[jillio]

Well I was scared, and still am. I'm afraid if I get something terminal it might kill me before the NHS did anything about it. Sorry if it sounds awfully Hypocondirac. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I've got anything terminal. At least I hope not but if It happened later on I'm afraid that I don't stand a chance.

I still wouldn't mind getting a hysterectomy as it would be one fatal illness less to worry about.

Having a hysterectomy will not prevent you getting cancer. It only means that the cancer will not show up in the missing uterus. And removal will also create other health concerns. That is why the doctor does not remove organs as if it were an elective surgery like a face lift.

 

[Daredevel7]

I still wouldn't mind getting a hysterectomy as it would be one fatal illness less to worry about.

That's the same as me saying "I will remove my breasts, one of my kidneys, uterus, and appendix" all things that I can live without for the POSSIBILITY of getting cancer/appendicitis.

 

[Babyblue]

Maybe my mother's doctors weren't in their right mind them?

Could be dreama.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

 

[dreama]

That's the same as me saying "I will remove my breasts, one of my kidneys, uterus, and appendix" all things that I can live without for the POSSIBILITY of getting cancer/appendicitis.

That should be your choice. If it made you feel better then I don't see anything wrong in it. After all prevention is better then cure.

I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding animal testing as I've tried to explain my views. I was against animal testing before my mother died but I didn't feel quite so strongly about it before.

After mother died it became a personal issue.

 

[dreama]

Could be dreama.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

Thanks Baby blue. I wish your uncle the best of luck.