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

[Trumpet]

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...

Or the other way round as per my earlier post, I still reckon that prehistoric man only grubbed around eating nuts, berries, worms etc until he worked out how to kill and eat animals, or evolved as you might say.

 

[henryscat]

You really discount all vault_girl says because SIV is not HIV?

Yes, it's a different disease in a different species, and its not me discounting it - sound science discounts it.

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

"Closest" doesn't mean anything. There are fundamental and distinct biological differences. HIV does not lead to AIDS in chimps. There was one case where it might have done, but even then there is a question mark over that - and it has not happened since.

 

[henryscat]

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

Does the level of your debate ever go above Daily Mail standard?

 

[henryscat]

http://www.armyths.org/

Scrutinise the source....

 

[henryscat]

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.

First recorded case of birth defect in humans linked to thalidomide was in December 56, but the drug was released in 1957 regardless. Thalidomide didn't get recalled until 1962 in which time 10,000 children were born with deformities.

In those five years, scientists tried desparately to reproduce birth defects from thalidomide in animals despite already having proof that it occurred in humans. Animal testing didn't indicate a problem with thalidomide and its use persisted, delaying recall.

One breed of rabbit (White New Zealand) was affected but only then at 25 - 300 times the human doese. Some monkeys eventually displayed birth defects, but at 10 times the normal dose. Findings summarised by two scientists - "an unexpected finding was that the mouse and rat were resistant, the rabbit and hamster variably responsive and certain strains of primate were sensitive to thalidomide developmental toxicity. Different strains of the same species of animal were found to have highly variable sensitivity to thalidomide" - in other words no predictive value other than in the animal being tested.

Another scientist wrote " in approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbit, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of hamsters, 8 species of primates and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally".

That "thalidomide wasn't tested on animals" prior to release doesn't stand scrutiny. In a German medical journal of the time, it is stated animal tests were conducted, including on pregnant rodents. Time magazine in Feb 62 also states thalidomide was released "after three years of animal tests".

Whatever happened, animal based teratogenicity tests would never have been conclusive....

Another scientist: "There is at present no hard evidencve to show the value of more extensive and prolonged laboratory testing as a method of reducing eventual risk in human patients. In other words the predictive value of studies carried out in animals is uncertain. The statutory bodies such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines which require these tests does so largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds. With thalidomide, for example, it is only possible to produce specific deformities in a very small number of species of animals. In this particular case, therefore, it is unlikely that specific tests in pregnant animals would have given the necessary warning: the right species would probably have never been used. Even more striking, the Practolol [birth defect] adverse reactions have not been reproducible in any species except man".

No amount of animal testing would have prevented the thalidomide disaster. In vitro research on human tissue would have done.

 

[Tapok]

If animals didn't like being experimented on they'd say something

I mean

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh

 

[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?

Does the level of your debate ever go above Daily Mail standard?

Hahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You proud of that?

Answer the question.

 

[tek-monkey]

Please give evidence for these statistics, without them its just random numbers which anyone could spout.

Scrutinise the source....

Seems as truthfull as any of the pro animal sources, what needs to be scrutinised and what makes them less reliable than an anti animal testing site?

 

[tek-monkey]

Done another search, still nowt. Every source is biased in some way, unless you have reasons why one is more reliable than another I shall treat all as reliable as each other. If your source is somehow more reliable than mine, please provide a link for your information.

 

[tek-monkey]

That "thalidomide wasn't tested on animals" prior to release doesn't stand scrutiny. In a German medical journal of the time, it is stated animal tests were conducted, including on pregnant rodents. Time magazine in Feb 62 also states thalidomide was released "after three years of animal tests".

Whatever happened, animal based teratogenicity tests would never have been conclusive.....

Who said it wasn't? I said it was, but the scientists screwed up the tests. They didn't factor that chemicals used on parens carried through to the children, that is not a failure of animal testing more a failing of testing in general. Animal testing did not hinder nor hold back this development. Instead it proved that our scientists needed to be aware of a lot more than they currently were.

 

[Withnail]

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

Does the level of your debate ever go above Daily Mail standard?

Hahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You proud of that?

Answer the question.

You must surely appreciate that in the context of the preceding argument this is not a reasonable question to ask.

If we take as read that medicines that reach the market have ipso facto been tested on animals it doesn't really follow that it is hypocritical to take them whilst disapproving of the methods that have brought them to market.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the methodology if it is entirely beyond one's control.

 

[Gramaisc]

I understand that most of the existing scientific studies on frostbite were done in the Nazi concentration camps, and it is difficult to perform these experiments ethically in the succeeding periods - but, do we ignore the data because of its origin?..

 

[Withnail]

it is difficult to perform these experiments ethically in the succeeding periods

That's one way of putting it!

but, do we ignore the data because of its origin?..

Now there's a question.

 

[Gramaisc]

It is a difficult one. The data exists, people can benefit from it, and we may never be able to replicate the experiments. Do we just ignore it?..

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

... broccoli ... which need to be eaten in large quantities to get the recommended 1000mg of calcium a day (less from some sources).

I can eat large quatities of broccoli - raw... Love the stuff!

 

[Gramaisc]

I can eat large quatities of broccoli - raw... Love the stuff!

Unlikely to get you on The X-Factor..

 

[Lunar Scorpion]

I can eat large quatities of broccoli - raw... Love the stuff!

Unlikely to get you on The X-Factor..

Who says I want to get on The X-Factor?!

Just noticed I missed out the 'n' in quantities - bugger, no hiding it now I've been quoted!

 

[Alan B'Stard]

It is a difficult one. The data exists, people can benefit from it, and we may never be able to replicate the experiments. Do we just ignore it?..

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html

The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments

 

[henryscat]

Done another search, still nowt. Every source is biased in some way, unless you have reasons why one is more reliable than another I shall treat all as reliable as each other. If your source is somehow more reliable than mine, please provide a link for your information.

You didn't look very far. "armyths" cites Americans for Medical Progress as one of its sources. AMP are funded by "the nations top universities" amongst others. Universities that rely on animal testing for hunreds of millions of dollars in research grants from the US government.

 

[henryscat]

what makes them less reliable than an anti animal testing site?

I haven't taken my information from an internet source. Wouldn't describe the sources as "anti animal testing" in the way that you mean either.