Forum Settings
Forums
Top
  >  
Forum
  >  
Current Events
  >  
Animal Testing
RecentWatchedIgnoredSearch Forum

Animal Testing

New
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (5) « First ... « 3 4 [5]
Jul 5, 2013 4:44 PM
#201
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
Unethical for using animals in an innatural and cruel way, I think animal testing is very dangerous for humans. With animal testing the pharmaceutical factory can ask more public money saying that they have to pay for the animals they have (animal experimentation is expensive!).
And using animals the researchers can select the species of animals on the basis of the results they want obtain. Ex. some animals die with diossine, other don't.
And when their drugs on the market will begin to kill people or to cause horrible diseases and reactions, the researchers will say that with animals the result was different, so it's not their fault. They want be paid! They don't care about human or animal welfare, rights etc. They are horrible people.

The Scientific Argument Against Animal Testing
"I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life."
-H. Fergie Woods, M.D. The most commonly held perception regarding animal experimentation is that it is necessary for the development of vaccines, cures and treatments for human illness. Proponents ask the important question, what will happen to research on AIDS, heart disease, and cancer if animal experimentation is completely stopped? Will the progress in cures and treatments for these types of illnesses also come to a halt?
There is a growing movement of healthcare professionals including doctors, scientists, and educated members of the public who are opposed to non-human animal-based experimentation on specifically medical and scientific grounds. They argue that animal research is based on a false premise, that results obtained through animal experimentation can be applied to the human body.

Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health.

The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities.
Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred.

Are these two examples just isolated cases? Even though pharmaceuticals are routinely tested on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 100,000 people every year are killed and more than 2 million are hospitalized as a result of prescription drugs used as prescribed. The British Medical Journal recently reported that 4 out of every 10 patients who take a prescribed drug can expect to suffer severe or noticeable side effects, while numerous clinical observers agree that the incidence of iatrogenesis (medically induced disease) is now so great that approximately 1 in every 10 hospital beds is occupied by a patient who has been made ill by their doctor.

What about all the important breakthroughs, as a result of animal research, that have aided human health? The animal research industry cites many examples of treatments or cures for illness that have been found using animals. They claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims.

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr.Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans.
The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination.

"There are no alternatives to animal experimentation, for one can only talk of alternatives if these replace something of the same worth; and there is nothing quite as useless, misleading and harmful as animal experimentation."
-Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D. Surgical anesthesia was discovered in the mid nineteenth century when Crawford Williamson Long observed the effects of ether on humans during "ether parties", a popular form of entertainment involving ether inhalation. Long observed that while etherized, people appeared impervious to pain. He transformed this observation into a more practical use in surgery. The discovery of anesthesia, like many other medical discoveries, came from the critical observation of humans.
At one time, due to the animal research based conclusions of Claude Bernard, diabetes was believed to be cause by liver damage. However, Thomas Crawley, in 1788 established the relationship between pancreatic damage and diabetes by performing autopsies on diabetic cadavers. Later on, Dr. M. Barron came to the conclusion that damage to the Islets of Langerhams causes diabetes in humans after studying the human pancreas. He concluded that insulin could be derived from an extract of the Islets of Langerhans. Then in 1920, Frederick Banting, using this knowledge, created the first extract that contained insulin.

"Indeed, while conflicting animal tests have often delayed and hampered advances on the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer."
-Dr. Irwin Bros, director of Roswell Park Memorial Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer.

Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports:

"Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25)

With billions of dollars, countless animals, and well over 30 years spent on the war on cancer, concrete results should have been seen if animal research was actually working. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer continues to rise. A March 22, 2004 article in Fortune Magazine, "Why We're Losing the War on Cancer", explains that animal-based cancer research is failing because "The models of cancer stink."

Animals are not good models for human cancer for 2 fundamental reasons:
Animals and humans do not get the same diseases. As a result, animal research focuses on artificially inducing symptoms of human cancer and attempting to treat those symptoms.
Experimental drugs and treatments that have been found effective on animal models will not necessarily work in people.
The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years".

Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.

PCP is a sedative for chimps
Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.
The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.
"Animal experiments confuse the issues and their results will never have scientific precision. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The general belief in the value of animal experimentation is the result of brainwashing that the public has been submitted to for a long time. Behind it are the pharmaceutical industries, which spend fortunes on publicity and finance the research institutes and the universities."
-Arie Brecher, M.D.


Got this from a science website.

Animal testing does NOT save lives, the future to finding cures to serious illnesses and diseases does NOT lie in animal testing but instead lies within testing with human DNA and cells, extracts.

After all, animals aren't humans. Can't rely on them to help s with medicine.
LetiziaPallaraJul 5, 2013 4:49 PM
Jul 5, 2013 4:47 PM
#202
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
I found very elucidative a discussion on the speakerscorner trust org between Tom Holder founder of Speaking for Research, and Michelle Thew chief Executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV).
Holder tries to hide the reality and he denies that animals have equal moral status to humans. He compares animals used for research to animals used for food: that's a crazy comparison.

Now I want copy some parts of the reply by Michelle Thew: " It is often argued that humans are more important than animals. Even assuming that was provable by objective criteria, since when did greater perceived value justify causing pain to the less valuable? We don'™t allow brain surgeons or political leaders, for their own benefit, to cause physical pain to prisoners or the unemployed or anyone else society perceives (wrongly) to be of less value.'People are more intelligent than animals' you may say. Well, not always; other animals, such as nonhuman primates, can be more intelligent than people with dementia or other brain injury. More importantly, relative intelligence is ethically irrelevant. As a society, we quite rightly protect people of very low intelligence from exploitation.
The truth is that we experiment on animals not because it is ethically justifiable but because we have the power to subjugate them. Humankind really should have moved on from 'might is right'™ as a guide to behaviour." ...

"The US Food and Drug Administration says that over 90% of clinical trials fail even though the treatments had passed animal tests on efficacy and safety. "...
"In 2011 in the UK, 425,030 animals were used in cancer research - often deliberately given cancer and then subjected to highly unpleasant experimental 'treatment' or left untreated; 1.6 million were bred with genetic malformations; 392,393 were used in poisoning tests, frequently lethal; 21,884 experiments involved interference with the brain; 2,880 induced psychological stress and 4,203 physical trauma.
The new EU law contemplates inescapable electric shocks (to induce helplessness), complete isolation for prolonged periods of social species like dogs or primates, forced swimming or exercise tests to exhaustion, destruction of animals’ immune system - and so much more.
Tom says that “humans’ moral status is what allows us to care for the suffering of other species”. Precisely. So why abuse moral authority by deliberately causing suffering?
Strictly regulated? Tell that to the marmosets at Cambridge left unattended overnight after surgery deliberately inflicting brain damage (with predictable consequences), with their suffering labelled as just ‘moderate’ by the Home Office despite multiple appalling symptoms. Or the macaques at Newcastle forced by chair and head restraint and severe thirst to perform repetitive tests day after day, month after month (for no obvious benefit). Or the hundreds of thousands of mice suffering "in extremis" (the words of an independent review) through being injected with botox (which is substantially used for cosmetics). Or the dogs and guinea-pigs bred in pitiful conditions."...

"Alternatives? We have numerous examples of their not being used, despite the law. The result: thousands of scientifically unnecessary experiments."...
"It is high time society caught up. Surely humankind should be able to do better than this dreadful catalogue of deliberately-inflicted suffering."
Jul 5, 2013 5:19 PM
#203
Hitchens

Offline
Jun 2010
1488
Oh look, Jack is in this thread.
Jul 5, 2013 5:30 PM
#204
HKA-4M-T7

Offline
Jul 2013
1398
Depends on the product. If it's shampoo or deodorant I never really understood the need to use animals to test the product. To test how much it makes them smell good? I don't know....

If it's medicine, than I'm for it. Of course there are a lot of "natural" remedies that can be great to use, but a lot of people also need man-made products to help people, and if killing 100 bunnies to save millions of people from a fatal illness is necessary, than go ahead.
Pikachu wants some
Jul 5, 2013 5:39 PM
#205
Manganese

Offline
May 2013
1688
No particular feelings about it.
It's the way of the world that the strong devour the weak.Humans are part of nature too and nobody tries testing toothpaste on a tiger, do they?
We test on some animals because we can.
Besides what we do to animals pales to what they do to each other.

If an alternative method of testing is available it should be used.
Otherwise....
Jul 5, 2013 6:21 PM
#207
Hiryu12

Offline
Apr 2013
3287
If the animals used have a very high population and don't really have a good niche in an ecosystem such as rats then its fine by me. And as long as proper treatment of these animals are also followed, its still fine by me.

Jul 5, 2013 6:26 PM
#208
Gehirn

Offline
Oct 2012
267
It's a big problem, but I think in the cases of medical research were we learn how to cure diseases and such it's kinda reasonable.
Jul 5, 2013 6:31 PM
#209
Goryo

Offline
Aug 2012
2935
Their suffering is needed in order to alleviate our suffering.
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه.


mattbenz99 said:
Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing
Jul 5, 2013 7:25 PM
#210
UTSANOMIKO

Offline
Oct 2012
4070
i dont really care about animal testings
RRRRRRRRRR
Jul 5, 2013 7:26 PM
#211
Aesther
Offline
May 2012
7013
...why is this still not locked despite me reporting it hours ago.

Necromancers. Necromancers everywhere.
Jul 5, 2013 8:55 PM
#212
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
Hey girls and boys! From your posts I understand that most of you didn't read mine.
----Using animals the researchers can select the SPECIES of animals on the basis of the results they want obtain.
And when their drugs on the market will begin to KILL people or to cause horrible DISEASES and reactions, the researchers will say that with animals the result was different, so it's not their fault. They want MONEY!

----Relative INTELLIGENCE is ethically irrelevant. As a society, we quite rightly protect people of very low intelligence from exploitation.

----The truth is that we experiment on animals not because it is ethically justifiable but because we have the POWER to subjugate them.

----Animals are not good models for human cancer for 2 fundamental reasons:
1) Animals and humans do not get the same diseases. As a result, animal research focuses on artificially inducing symptoms of human cancer and attempting to treat those symptoms.
2) Experimental drugs and treatments that have been found effective on animal models will not necessarily work in people.
LetiziaPallaraJul 5, 2013 8:59 PM
Jul 6, 2013 6:37 AM
#213
ReasonDesu

Offline
Jan 2012
1833
We have an animal testing facility miles away from my house in Ledbury ran by Sequani which has seen protests against it by animal rights groups. It's a shame as I actually got offered a lab technician job there but rejected when I received the details of what I would be expected to do and the types of experiments ran there. I'm even dubious about allowing it for the medical industry as the big Pharma companies push drugs on patients to make money.
Jul 6, 2013 7:07 AM
#214
Protokin

Offline
Jun 2013
22
A few examples...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4m-Fgol0q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6cVcGmFm28

Nowadays, there are alternatives to testing on animals.
Jul 6, 2013 7:33 AM
#215
Risara
Offline
Feb 2013
1181
animal testing isnt that bad i had my squirrel drink a immortality potion and killed him and guess what it was succesful
Jul 6, 2013 7:54 AM
#216
Trapalicious

Offline
Jun 2009
1040
When it comes to the medical field, I see it as a necessary evil. Yes, it is not perfect and no one is trying to suggest otherwise. It is however a lot better than many of the alternatives out there, and no one can deny the progress that has been made through Animal testing.
Jul 6, 2013 10:18 AM
#217
Ghostony

Offline
Aug 2012
2417
Confucius said:
Neiru2012 said:
I am against testing on anyone (human or non-human) without consent,


Yes, let me ask my neighbor's dog if I could use him for my science project.

He's going to have to be 18 year or older to legally consent
sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye
romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds
Jul 6, 2013 10:36 AM
#218
Hoppy

Offline
Nov 2008
27806
It depends on the animal, few would care if a chimp, rats, or mice get experimented on, that happens everyday but if dogs, cats, bunnies, and horses are experimented on, it ends in backlash.


Jul 6, 2013 11:31 AM
#219
Protokin

Offline
Jun 2013
22
Examples.
http://www.youtube.com/user/officialpeta
Alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_animal_testing
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx
It just doesn't make sense and is a sick and disgusting thing. Animals have feelings and pain just like we do. They also scream and cry like humans.
Jul 6, 2013 12:18 PM
#220
bottle

Offline
Dec 2009
1591
Those alternatives won't work at least for now. Even with animal testing, it's not enough.
After animal testing, drugs are tested on healthy people, then the sick ones who need them. New drugs are often used with caution.
The best standard of studying the result is to take the cells out of the body and study them with microscopy and various experiments. However, it's often not possible for human. The value of animal testing will still be there, although some tests may be unnecessary.
bottleJul 6, 2013 12:22 PM
Jul 6, 2013 6:04 PM
#221
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtj89MzoZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5yIuvQGE8&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVS5yIuvQGE8&has_verified=1

Nice experiments showing that that animals have moral codes.
Do animals feel empathy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVcAHOzXKo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rWP1O3HbAs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acgFjL31avo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sOw3mCz4Oc&list=PL8CA3E99241A192B9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZw-1BfHFKM


Nowadays animal experimentation is as much cruel as in the past, and maybe more.
Don't you know that the dogs beagles are tested to prove that smoke causes diseases?
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.541483549249415.1073741825.343938859003886&type=3

Don't you know that to teste the anesthetics and analgesics animals have to suffer?

This link show you a ten years ago scandal: organs transplantations from pigs to monkeys.
Monkeys dying weeks later with their hand on their breast where there was a pig heart.
http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm

And this is NEW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLKaHcKIUDY
LetiziaPallaraJul 7, 2013 5:51 AM
Jul 6, 2013 6:14 PM
#222
DRONESAUR

Offline
Dec 2010
47
I can't condone it.


With consumer products I am absolutely opposed to it, and find it disgusting that people would cause such suffering for reasons so ultimately trivial and unnecessary. When it comes to medical testing, at least I can acknowledge that there is at least the viable possibility of a benefit, but I still cannot bring myself to support it.
Jul 6, 2013 6:23 PM
#223
katsucats

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
I condone it. I encourage it. I find the people that find it disgusting, disgusting. At some point chemical products and medical advancements need testing to make sure they are safe and suitable for human use. There are only 2 true alternatives to animal testing:

1. Human testing
2. The abatement of medical advancements and chemical innovation.

To me, the assertion that one is against any animal testing is an implicit admittance that he supports either #1 or #2, both of which will cause human deaths.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Jul 8, 2013 5:52 PM
#224
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
Please girls and boy, women and men, and transex too....

Have an attentive look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLKaHcKIUDY
Jul 9, 2013 10:40 AM
#225
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
Charles Darwin on vivisection, book The Descent of Man (1871):


[E]veryone has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life.
Jul 9, 2013 12:09 PM
#226
ezikialrage

Offline
Aug 2009
5517
I am all for animals being tested on when it comes to medicinal and and cosmetic products.This reduces the likelihood of these products harming any humans and animals in the future.
Jul 9, 2013 2:05 PM
#227
RandomChampion

Offline
Oct 2009
4800
human master race checking in
Jul 10, 2013 7:13 AM
#228
LetiziaPallara
Offline
Jun 2013
8
ezikialrage said:
I am all for animals being tested on when it comes to medicinal and and cosmetic products.This reduces the likelihood of these products harming any humans and animals in the future.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vep0YbndO14
Feb 5, 2014 8:46 AM
#229
DeborahWrigley
Offline
Feb 2014
1
I agree, animal testing especially for “beauty” purposes is unacceptable.

I only recently became aware of how many brands did test on animals and was really shocked at how many did and how difficult it was to identify which brands are “safe” to buy.

I’ve started a petition to ask the UK’s largest retailer in this sector to label products in store so consumers know whether they are buying cruelty free products or not.

I think if most people knew they were buying products tested on animals they would think twice but unfortunately most people don’t realise.

If you could sign my petition I’d really appreciate it, I’m hoping that by getting the leading retailer to make this change others will follow suit.

The link to the petition is: http://www.change.org/petitions/simon-roberts-ceo-boots-uk-implement-cruelty-free-labelling-in-store

Please sign if you care about this topic as much as I do and want consumers to know what they are buying into when they choose to buy certain brands.
Feb 5, 2014 8:54 AM
#230
Shiratori99

Offline
Sep 2013
4133
I'm all for the research ban on great apes. But apart from them and certain other species that can be excluded too animals are just mindless biological robots. As long as animal testing improves and saves human lives it is not just justifyable, but absolutely necessary. Anyone who argues otherwise has to take the responsibility for all the needless human deaths that would occur if animal testing were to be stopped.
Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club.

Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more!

Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood

^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls.
Feb 5, 2014 12:44 PM
#231
Leah
Soldier 1stClass

Offline
Mar 2008
3194
I am absolutely against animal testing and I will never buy products from companies who I've discovered practice it. There is no reason why humans need to put poisonous and otherwise questionable ingredients in products intended for human use to begin with. Testing on animals is also a flawed system as not every human would react to a product in the same way(s) as an animal would.

Humans stand strongest when they coexist peacefully with animals. Choosing to use a product knowing that it has been tested on animals is a pompous behavior that is destructive to the planet and is supportive of this inhumane practice. There are countless alternative products that can be purchased instead. Not buying products that have been tested on animals, and tweeting the companies that practice it about how disgusted we are, are some of the ways that myself and many others can stand against and attempt to put and end to it.



☁️📖🗝️ | (⸝⸝ᵕᴗᵕ⸝⸝)
Feb 5, 2014 1:30 PM
#232
Shiratori99

Offline
Sep 2013
4133
Ramen said:
I am absolutely against animal testing and I will never buy products from companies who I've discovered practice it. There is no reason why humans need to put poisonous and otherwise questionable ingredients in products intended for human use to begin with. Testing on animals is also a flawed system as not every human would react to a product in the same way(s) as an animal would.

Humans stand strongest when they coexist peacefully with animals. Choosing to use a product knowing that it has been tested on animals is a pompous behavior that is destructive to the planet and is supportive of this inhumane practice. There are countless alternative products that can be purchased instead. Not buying products that have been tested on animals, and tweeting the companies that practice it about how disgusted we are, are some of the ways that myself and many others can stand against and attempt to put and end to it.


What ignorance... good luck relying only on medicine that never got tested on animals (aka. almost none) when you're sick. Just hope you'll never get a serious illness then.
Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club.

Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more!

Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood

^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls.
Feb 5, 2014 1:33 PM
#233
RedArmyShogun

Offline
Jan 2013
11951
As Shiratori pointed out in a round about way, pretty much nothing medical or the like hasn't been tested on animals. Generally I'm supportive of it, though some things you just have to go "why?" to. Such as cosmetics.

I would favor using prisoners for capital crimes in some testing however.
Feb 6, 2014 3:52 AM
#234
Loupes

Offline
Sep 2007
1231
Cosmetic testing - No
Medical testing - Yes

How do you think transplantation got developed?


Feb 6, 2014 3:57 AM
#235
no-thanks
Offline
Nov 2008
18019
RedArmyShogun said:

I would favor using prisoners for capital crimes in some testing however.


That's a whole different bag of worms you're opening there. Might as well throw out human rights and legal rights in the process.
Feb 6, 2014 1:56 PM
#236
deactivated30325
Offline
Dec 2013
3536
Defiance said:
Depends on the animal and the extent in which it could suffer, the importance of the product and the rate at which it's being done. I'm certainly not condoning animal cruelty, but I could see some cases(e.g. life saving cancer treatments) where animal testing could be justified.
Feb 19, 2014 5:12 AM
#237
alexa386
Offline
Feb 2014
1
Who is the scientific team behind Bioheart?

Having an extreme interest in stem cell technology, the applications, the current benefits and the future milestones yet to be achieved, I’ve been looking more in depth into the companies who offer this incredible technology.

Doing some brief online searches about these companies, BioHeart (on the human side) and Stemlogix (on the animal side) appeared to be prominent in the public domain. I consistently came across news coverage, press releases and you tube videos about both companies and their success in the regenerative technology space.

Now being intrigued, I was more interested in the companies themselves, and not just the technology they offer, but the people behind making BioHeart and Stemlogix successful.

Doing more in depth research, and to much of my surprise, I came across a lawsuit filed by Stemlogix. What I learned from the allegations in this suit about management of what initially appeared to be quite reputable companies became even more concerning.

The lawsuit itself is filed by Stemlogix suing a scientist for breach of contract, whom they hired to create a scientifically validated method of controlled variables to yield a defined cell product to be used in training, research & cell banking.

Interestingly enough, this particular scientist whom they refer to is Kristen Comella, who is currently the Chief Science Officer of BioHeart and is also currently serving as co-founder and CEO of Stemlogix. Is this not a conflict in itself? Unless these are both part time positions, how can one person effectively manage these two roles?
Additionally, I was also surprised to learn that Stemlogix is registered and operating out of Ms. Comella’s personal home address. How can a company offer “Premier In-Clinic Stem Cell Therapy Solutions for Veterinary Medicine” as stated on their website and be run from a person’s home?
However, some of the most interesting accusations of Ms. Comella outlined in this lawsuit are as follows:

• Stealing corporate funds by taking advances and moving financials out of the companies’ accounts.

• Misappropriation of trade secrets

• Misappropriated funds through Comella’s involvement with Pavillion Foods, a company owned and operated by Comella’s family, in which Comella insisted and insured that this “food company” be utilized as the sole source for lab kit materials and production of kits without seeking independent bidding for prices from third parties. (This particular point is a huge red flag to me, how is it safe, ethical and for the sake of quality control even logical to make stem cell kits in a food plant?)

• Disclosing confidential and proprietary business information to third parties, despite signed disclosure agreements and contracts

• Purposefully and intentionally withholding orders for stem cell kits and refusing to provide customer information to permit these orders be fulfilled in attempts to cause financial harm.

• Converting the day to day operations information of Ageless, Stemlogix and LabKits for her own personal use via improper hoarding of information.

It surprised me that a publicly traded company (BHRT) has managed to not only keep this under wraps but even have this individual employed, as her actions appear to be unethical and unbecoming of executive management of what again, I initially thought were two reputable companies.

I hope this prompts further action and response, as both these companies owe public investors and users of said technologies further explanation of how someone like this can be a part of their team and who actually stands behind their “science”.

For additional details and information regarding the full lawsuit, please see the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNsb16Fz_wQ
Jul 18, 2014 12:15 AM
#238
Jamesmiddlebrock
Offline
Jul 2014
1
That is very sad; these companies should be fined for their insane work. It is against humanity. Animals too have life and they too feel pain. There are many other ways to check the products. Many companies like: Sitmaereachservices etc are highly against animal testing and thus have found other ways for chemical testing.

Reach legislation ( http://www.sitmaereachservices.com/what-is-reach/reach-explanation/ )
Jul 25, 2015 3:44 AM
#239
sushmita9
Offline
Jul 2015
1
Unilever has allegedly been involved in disturbing tests animals in order to make health claims about their products.Unilever is also accused of experiments involving the safety of Hoodia gordonii, a potential diet aid, in pregnancy. It was allegedly fed to pregnant rabbits, which were then killed just before they were due to give birth.

For what cause must the animal endure such a wretched, tortured existence?
Millions of rabbits, dogs, cats, mice and other animals are burned, poisoned and killed in painful and unnecessary tests each year for the sake of cosmetics and toiletries.

Sign now for a petition and make the world suck less.

---------> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/823/673/517/demand-an-end-to-animal-testing-unilever/
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (5) « First ... « 3 4 [5]
See All Discussions

More topics from this board

Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Luna - Aug 2, 2021

271 by traed »»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM

» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )

Desolated - Jul 30, 2021

50 by Desolated »»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM

» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.

Desolated - Aug 5, 2021

1 by Bourmegar »»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM

» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor law

Desolated - Aug 3, 2021

17 by kitsune0 »»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM

» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To Itself

Desolated - Aug 5, 2021

10 by Desolated »»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM

MoreTop Anime

  1. 1 Sousou no Frieren
  2. 2 Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood
  3. 3 Steins;Gate
  4. 4 Shingeki no Kyojin Season 3 Part 2
  5. 5 Gintama: The Final

MoreTop Airing Anime

  1. 1 Kingdom 6th Season
  2. 2 One Piece
  3. 3 Boku no Hero Academia: Final Season
  4. 4 Tian Guan Cifu Short Film
  5. 5 Doupo Cangqiong: Nian Fan

MoreMost Popular Characters

  1. 1 Lamperouge, Lelouch
  2. 2 Monkey D., Luffy
  3. 3 Levi
  4. 4 Lawliet, L
  5. 5 Roronoa, Zoro
It’s time to ditch the text file.
Keep track of your anime easily by creating your own list.
Sign Up Login