Animal rights - are they serious? Animal research & sustainable meat

[Withnail]

I'd still eat a squirrel, though.

If the opportunity arose.

 

[Trumpet]

Is it crayfish time down by Sainsburys yet?

 

[Trumpet]

It isn't though. Excessive meat consumption is a modern day western phenomenon. The nation was at its healthiest just after WW2, when rationing was still in place (and Jack Drummond who was the nutrionist behind rationing set the quantities so that people could eat a balanced diet).

Dunno about modern day western phenomenon, I reckon that our appetite for meat came about as a process of evolution, no-one gave prehistoric man a cook book and told him to start eating meat, he followed his instincts and stopped grubbing around eating fruit, nuts etc and found ways to kill and eat animals. In much the same way as the natural instinct to reproduce, no-one gave him a sex manual, he just did what came naturally.
Just my opinion of course as I wasn't there.

Key word being "reckon"...

Meat consumption is increasing far more quickly than population. People are eating more meat now than they ever did. Obesity is getting ever more prevalent and the population more unhealthy (with meat/dairy consumption playing its part in that).

Thought we were all living longer now.

 

[tek-monkey]

Thats only because of advances in medicine....

 

[Vault_girl]

sorry had to be done:

Sticks head further into sand in a further bout of utter ignorance

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060525-aids-chimps.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/31/us/infected-with-human-virus-a-chimpanzee-develops-aids.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090722/full/news.2009.711.html

For those who can't be bothered to read (they're quite long) its understood that, far from not being present in the wild, HIV actually originates from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) and has been found to be very common in chimps in the wild. SIV affects chimps in the same way HIV affects humans, . The belief is that humans ate chimp meat infected with SIV and caught HIV which they then spread.

The second link is about a chimp who was found to have full blown AIDS after over a decade of being infected with HIV. I would point out that it can take a number of years, decades in fact for humans to develop AIDS and that the initial symptoms of HIV in humans is similar to flu or a bad cold (the immune system begins to shut down so the infected person gets sick).

The third link about about wild chimps being shown to have developed AIDS-like illnesses. This was originally thought to be a bad thing as scientists had been studying chimps with SIV to try to find the key to stopping HIV becoming AIDS. However other primates who have lived with SIV for far longer than chimps are able to control the SIV infection to avoid AIDS -like illnesses which means scientists can examine why chimps seem to get AIDS whilst other primates do not which could hold the key for finding a way to stop people with HIV getting AIDS.

These news articles have been around for as long as 14 years - this is not new science.

try googling "chimpanzee aids"

 

[tek-monkey]

henryscat, can you honestly tell me that animal research has not helped medical advances, rather than merely point to some places where it hasn't (which are actually in dispute, so some links to the research would help). Seatbelts don't always save lives, they are still a good idea. Crash helmets don't always protect you enough, are all crash helmets flawed?

It isn't a black and white question.... Should I refuse a medical treatment that was developed without animals, but was then later tested on animals?

Animals will always have been used to test it, before it is allowed onto the UK market.

As far as the animal is concerned suffering is being inflicted regardless of what's being tested.

Does the validity of the experiment change the animals suffering? Why should it matter at what stage the animals were used?

I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion, nobody will change their minds and I'm yet to see any evidence that testing doesn't actually work. No scientist in the world gets every drug he makes correct first time, there will always be failures. Unless you can prove that animals never help in making the drugs that are useful, I can't change my stance that it is a useful practice.

I also don't agree with testing cosmetics on them, rabbits look stupid in lipstick, but medicine I do agree with.

 

[Gramaisc]

 

[tek-monkey]

TrannyBunny?

 

[Gramaisc]

TrannyBunny?

Allegedly...

 

[shoes]

ok ok all those in favour of living happy lives, eating meat and taking medicine to prolong a happy and healthy existence do so.

all those against eating meat, animal testing and research stop eating meat, stop using any products associated with animals, don't even THINK about going to your doctor, or a hospital, and get on with your short, miserable life. with any luck the lack of medication and proper diet will finish you off quickly and we won't have to endure your moaning, preaching and general downer view on life for too long.

And yes, bugs bunny was a tranny.

 

[Trumpet]

Just don't tell me Bugs Bunny turned into Jessica Rabbit.

 

[Vault_girl]

 

[Gramaisc]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...80512252589/A-Chinese-woman-selling-s-001.jpg

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation is taking seriously the farming of creepy-crawlies as nutritious food.

Would this be more acceptable?

Interesting item on 'insects as food' on the World Tonight last night on Radio 4 - details here.

 

[henryscat]

henryscat, can you honestly tell me that animal research has not helped medical advances, rather than merely point to some places where it hasn't (which are actually in dispute, so some links to the research would help).

It is flawed because of fundamental biological differences, which apply all of the time...

Seatbelts don't always save lives, they are still a good idea. Crash helmets don't always protect you enough, are all crash helmets flawed?

I fail to see the analogy. In your example there is a clear, consistent, proven link. Animal testing is none of those three.

Animals will always have been used to test it, before it is allowed onto the UK market.

Doesn't follow from the question.

I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion, nobody will change their minds and I'm yet to see any evidence that testing doesn't actually work.

Indeed probably not, but to be blunt you're obviously not prepared to look in depth at any evidence and draw your conclusions based on what you'd like to think is the truth, rather than looking a bit more closely. Dissonance by the bucket load.

No scientist in the world gets every drug he makes correct first time, there will always be failures.

Quite, but if your methodology is flawed then what hope for the results?

Unless you can prove that animals never help in making the drugs that are useful, I can't change my stance that it is a useful practice.

Why is it down to me to prove it.... ? I've put forward a selection of evidence to support what I'm saying, I haven't got time to type the contents of my bookshelves, but its all there. It isn't other people's job to seek knowledge for you!

 

[henryscat]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060525-aids-chimps.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/31/us/infected-with-human-virus-a-chimpanzee-develops-aids.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090722/full/news.2009.711.html

For those who can't be bothered to read (they're quite long) its understood that, far from not being present in the wild, HIV actually originates from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) and has been found to be very common in chimps in the wild. SIV affects chimps in the same way HIV affects humans, . The belief is that humans ate chimp meat infected with SIV and caught HIV which they then spread.

The second link is about a chimp who was found to have full blown AIDS after over a decade of being infected with HIV. I would point out that it can take a number of years, decades in fact for humans to develop AIDS and that the initial symptoms of HIV in humans is similar to flu or a bad cold (the immune system begins to shut down so the infected person gets sick).

The third link about about wild chimps being shown to have developed AIDS-like illnesses. This was originally thought to be a bad thing as scientists had been studying chimps with SIV to try to find the key to stopping HIV becoming AIDS. However other primates who have lived with SIV for far longer than chimps are able to control the SIV infection to avoid AIDS -like illnesses which means scientists can examine why chimps seem to get AIDS whilst other primates do not which could hold the key for finding a way to stop people with HIV getting AIDS.

These news articles have been around for as long as 14 years - this is not new science.

try googling "chimpanzee aids"

All of which proves sod and bugger all. SIV is not HIV. There is no direct equivalent of HIV / AIDS in primates. There are fundamental and distinct biological differences between primates and humans which mean that HIV/AIDS research in primates is completely and utterly flawed. Scientists who spent years involved in that very research have admitted the very same. Development of treatments for AIDS has been held back and misled as a result.

As I pointed out, the key developments in the advancement of treatment for AIDS have been made in the absence of animals.

 

[zakkwylde87]

I once went over the speed limit a little whilst eating a burger - Does the thought of this make you phsyically sick henryscat? Hehe.

All animals eat meat until we became clever enough to think not to.... How ironic...

 

[tek-monkey]

You really discount all vault_girl says because SIV is not HIV? Even though it is a disease in our closest biological relative that acts exactly the same as HIV does in us, and that chimps can indeed contract HIV, and that some primates can control it better than others to avoid full blown AIDs, and AIDs has been proved to have come directly from these primates, you do not see this as a valid avenue for experiment?

EDIT: I never knew a chimps latin name was a troglodyte!

National Geographic - AIDs comes from a chimp population in Camaroon.
Same story, different source
More info on the different strains of the virus, and which affect which mammals

 

[shoes]

So henryscat, if you were dying and the only drug which could help you was tested on animals, I presume you would gracefully die?

 

[tek-monkey]

Slow work day, so lets have a look at a few other bits of info

Penicillin will kill some animals, it does not kill humans: just one example. So, no it isn't a good start.

"How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised" - Fleming....

MYTH 2.2.1: "Penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs but not humans"

One of my favourite AR myths this one, because it is a good illustration a favourite AR tactic, the half truth.

The reaction of the guinea-pig to penicillin was first described in a scientific paper in 1943(1). High daily doses of very impure penicillin killed 95% of guinea-pigs within 3-4 days. So far, so true. However, when the purity was increased tenfold, 60% died. We now know that even these preparations were only 60% pure. This it is quite likely, and is actually suggested in the 1943 paper, that the impurities in the early samples of penicillin were responsible for some of the toxicity. The paper also went to great pains to emphasise that when given the same dose of penicillin as used in humans, no toxic effects were observed.

What is really interesting is why high doses of penicillin kills guinea pigs - it is nothing to do with the toxicity of penicillin itself. The high doses kill the natural bacterial fauna of the guinea pig intestine, leading to colonisation by other types of bacteria and subsequent blood poisoning (2). The same phenomenon is observed in humans who take large doses of antibiotic over a long period. Thus it appears that the guinea pig, far from being strikingly different from humans, is in fact similar to the many patients who develop inflammation of the colon (colitis) when they take penicillin.

1. Hamre D M et al (1943) Am. J. Med. Sci. vol.206: 64

2. De Somer P et al (1955) Ant. Chem. vol.5: 463

http://www.armyths.org/

 

[tek-monkey]

Thalidomide causes birth defects in humans, it does not do so in most animals. There are countless other examples.

MYTH 2.2.4 "Thalidomide passed animal tests with 'flying colours'."

This is a particularly distasteful lie because it attempts to exploit people's concern for the disabled.

Some 30 years ago, the drug thalidomide was prescribed to women in early pregnancy to overcome the unpleasantness of morning sickness. It was soon clear that this had the most appalling effect of damaging the developing embryo. It is often claimed by AR propaganda that these effects were not shown in animal tests.

In fact, thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals before it was used in humans - it was not realised at that time that a drug could have a harmful effect on the foetus but not the mother. This showed up a serious weakness in the way that testing is carried out and changes have now been made. However, after the effects of thalidomide had been established and the drug withdrawn, the same effects were shown to occur in a variety of animals (1-5).

In the US, thalidomide was never approved by the US Food and Drug administration because they were not satisfied with the level of testing carried out in Europe.

The lesson of the thalidomide tragedy is that it was not animal experimentation that was at fault - but *too little* animal experimentation.

1.DiPaolo JA (1963). Congenital malformation in strain A mice: its experimental production by thalidomide. JAMA vol.183: 139-141

2 King CTG &; Kendrick FJ (1962). Teratogenic effects of thalidomide in the Sprague Dawley rat. The Lancet: ii: 1116

3. Homburger F, Chaube S, Eppenberger M, Bogdonoff PD and Nixon CW (1965). Susceptibility of certain inbred strains of hamsters to teratogenic effects of thalidomide. Toxicol Appl Pharmaco vol.: 686-69

4. Hamilton WJ & Poswillo DE (1972). Limb reduction anomalies induced in the marmoset by thalidomide. J Anat vol.11:505-50

5. Hendrick AG, Axelrod LR & Clayborn LD (1966). Thalidomide syndrome in baboons Natur vol. 210: 958-95

Thalidomide.

Penicillin.

HIV / AIDS.

Three of countless examples where results from animal testing have been utterly misleading.

Sorry, I can't where the results were misleading. I also can't see how animal testing caused the results to be misleading in any of these cases, merely that the scientists were flawed in the way they carried out some experiments.