"We've won the ethical argument and are winning the scientific argument."

Jan 12, 2014 Full story: Examiner.com 46

The horrific images, videos, and tales of animal experimentation that occur inside laboratories around the world are undoubtedly and disappointingly true.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#1 Jan 12, 2014
Since 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have begun to acknowledge that biomedical and behavioral animal experimentation has failed to prove the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, and chemicals.

It was known long before this.

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virgil Strarkwell

Midland, TX

#2 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
Since 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have begun to acknowledge that biomedical and behavioral animal experimentation has failed to prove the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, and chemicals.
It was known long before this.
How novel, another animal rights airhead selling revisionist history.

"Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine", really ? This PETA front group is the best you can do ? Sad !

Judged:

22

21

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#3 Jan 13, 2014
Virgil Strarkwell wrote:
<quoted text>How novel, another animal rights airhead selling revisionist history.
"Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine", really ? This PETA front group is the best you can do ? Sad !
Regardless of the messenger, the message is factual and based on science, unlike your drivel.

And Einstein, it is Virgil Starkwell, not Strarkwell. If you are going to invoke Woody Allen movie references, get it right; but then again, being right is not something you are accustomed to.

Judged:

22

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fielding Mellish

Midland, TX

#4 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of the messenger, the message is factual and based on science, unlike your drivel..
Here are some actual facts for you, Gertrude. The web is full of examples...
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-adv...
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
And Einstein, it is Virgil Starkwell, not Strarkwell. If you are going to invoke Woody Allen movie references, get it right; but then again, being right is not something you are accustomed to.
That's it? A typo is all you have? What a desperate turd you are.

Judged:

16

14

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#5 Jan 13, 2014
Fielding Mellish wrote:
<quoted text> Here are some actual facts for you, Gertrude. The web is full of examples...
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-adv...
<quoted text>That's it? A typo is all you have? What a desperate turd you are.
Wow, a pro-animal research site - no bias there.

Relying on animal research and testing to protect and improve human health is not only unsafe, but also expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. Problems of extrapolation—applying information from animal research to humans—are inevitable when researchers use animal models to study human diseases. Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair—among myriad other differences between humans and other species—can give us inadequate or erroneous information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses. For example, penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, aspirin is poisonous to cats, and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans. And despite millions of animals used and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on cancer research, roughly 95 percent of cancer drugs that enter human clinical testing fail while our incidences of cancer have continued to rise. Stated by Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the National Cancer Institute,“We have cured cancer in mice for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”[1] Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, do not accurately predict results in humans—of the more than 80 HIV vaccines that have proven safe and efficacious in chimpanzees (as well as other nonhuman primates), all have failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials, with one actually increasing a human’s chance of HIV infection.

Statistics show irrefutably that animal-based methods used in preclinical testing to select drugs for human use are unreliable. In fact, studies show that if you flipped a coin to guess how a human will respond to a certain drug, your prediction would actually be as accurate as if you tested the drug on a nonhuman animal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the pharmaceutical industry all acknowledge this. The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This failure rate has increased from 86 percent in 1985, in spite of all the “advances and refinements” intended to make animal tests more accurate. In addition, more than half of the few drugs approved are later withdrawn or relabeled due to serious or lethal adverse effects in humans. For example, the arthritis drug Vioxx appeared to be safe in animal studies, but was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after causing over 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. In 2007, the FDA revealed that serious and fatal adverse drug events have more than doubled between 1998 and 2005.

You should have saved 'turd' for later, now you've exhausted your vocabulary.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fielding Mellish

Midland, TX

#6 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, a pro-animal research site - no bias there.
Relying on animal research and testing to protect and improve human health is not only unsafe, but also expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. Problems of extrapolation—applying information from animal research to humans—are inevitable when researchers use animal models to study human diseases. Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair—among myriad other differences between humans and other species—can give us inadequate or erroneous information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses. For example, penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, aspirin is poisonous to cats, and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans. And despite millions of animals used and billions of taxpayer dollars spent on cancer research, roughly 95 percent of cancer drugs that enter human clinical testing fail while our incidences of cancer have continued to rise. Stated by Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the National Cancer Institute,“We have cured cancer in mice for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”[1] Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, do not accurately predict results in humans—of the more than 80 HIV vaccines that have proven safe and efficacious in chimpanzees (as well as other nonhuman primates), all have failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials, with one actually increasing a human’s chance of HIV infection.
Statistics show irrefutably that animal-based methods used in preclinical testing to select drugs for human use are unreliable. In fact, studies show that if you flipped a coin to guess how a human will respond to a certain drug, your prediction would actually be as accurate as if you tested the drug on a nonhuman animal. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the pharmaceutical industry all acknowledge this. The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This failure rate has increased from 86 percent in 1985, in spite of all the “advances and refinements” intended to make animal tests more accurate. In addition, more than half of the few drugs approved are later withdrawn or relabeled due to serious or lethal adverse effects in humans. For example, the arthritis drug Vioxx appeared to be safe in animal studies, but was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after causing over 60,000 deaths in the U.S. alone. In 2007, the FDA revealed that serious and fatal adverse drug events have more than doubled between 1998 and 2005.
You should have saved 'turd' for later, now you've exhausted your vocabulary.
More denial. No surprise to see it again but thanks for the comic relief. The overwhelming benefits for humanity of animal research over the last 100 years are undeniable, but hey, live in any alternate reality you choose. That is your burden, not mine.

Judged:

15

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#7 Jan 13, 2014
Fielding Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>More denial. No surprise to see it again but thanks for the comic relief. The overwhelming benefits for humanity of animal research over the last 100 years are undeniable, but hey, live in any alternate reality you choose. That is your burden, not mine.
As the science shows, humanity would have benefited better with a coin toss. The only people who made out were the profiteers.

Still waiting for the science to back your assertions. Good luck - you'll need it.

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fielding Mellish

Midland, TX

#8 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
As the science shows, humanity would have benefited better with a coin toss. The only people who made out were the profiteers.
Still waiting for the science to back your assertions. Good luck - you'll need it.
No science, just another denial with an obfuscation. The cure for polio, rabies, and anthrax were all made possible through animal testing. Profiteers? Do you work for free?

Judged:

15

14

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#9 Jan 13, 2014
Fielding Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>No science, just another denial with an obfuscation. The cure for polio, rabies, and anthrax were all made possible through animal testing. Profiteers? Do you work for free?
Check your 'research', then get back to me.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virgil Starkwell

Midland, TX

#10 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Check your 'research', then get back to me.
We can add cholera, diphtheria, and small pox to the list of cures/vaccines found through animal testing and then there's all of the anti-venoms made from milking the toxins from venomous reptiles. Here's a simple read even you should be able to understand...

http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/Anima...

Judged:

13

13

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#11 Jan 13, 2014
Virgil Starkwell wrote:
<quoted text>We can add cholera, diphtheria, and small pox to the list of cures/vaccines found through animal testing and then there's all of the anti-venoms made from milking the toxins from venomous reptiles. Here's a simple read even you should be able to understand...
http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/Anima...
Since 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have begun to acknowledge that biomedical and behavioral animal experimentation has FAILED to prove the safety and efficacy of drugs, vaccines, and chemicals.

You should be personally familiar with the concept of failing as you are a master at it.

"As to the effects and tolerability of foreign substances (drugs, toxins etc.) in the human
organism, numerous researchers of all disciplines have repeatedly pointed out that in this field also no adequate information can be obtained from experimenting on animals. There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."

"Ever since the days of Galen, who put back the study of anatomy several hundred years by
basing his conclusions on his experience dissecting pigs, practising doctors have been aware that animals are so different from humans - anatomically and physiologically - that the results obtained from experiments on animals are pointless. Only really second-rate scientists still believe that such experiments are worthwhile. But, sadly, the scientists who use animals are just that - universally second rate. We suffer from different diseases and we respond in different ways to drugs. Using animals to 'try out' products intended for humans is at best useless and at worst - as with Thalidomide - dangerously misleading," (From the 24-pagelong speech that Dr Coleman submitted to ILDAV to be delivered at the International Scientific Conference held at the Mutualite in Paris on June 19, 1989

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virgil Starkwell

Midland, TX

#12 Jan 13, 2014
Which side of your arse are you pulling this shite from, Gertrude ?

Judged:

12

11

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#13 Jan 13, 2014
Virgil Starkwell wrote:
Which side of your arse are you pulling this shite from, Gertrude ?
The side your lips are attached to Nancy.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virgil Starkwell

Midland, TX

#14 Jan 13, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
The side your lips are attached to Nancy.
I get it, Gertrude. You won't post links because your posts are vomit from animal rights loons. Trust me when I tell you I understand your shame but it is just plain wrong to post this vomit without a source.

Judged:

11

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Andrew

Brisbane, Australia

#15 Jan 13, 2014
I love the way the loony left tries to shut down any debate by invoking an ethical and scientific victory that has not occurred.
We are meat eaters. Even chimps are hunt and eat meat.
Medical progress would be slow without animals to experiment on.

Judged:

11

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#17 Jan 13, 2014

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Virgil Starkwell

Midland, TX

#18 Jan 14, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
http://aerzte-gegen-tierversuc he.de/en/component/content/art icle/55-resources/244-why-anim al-experiments-are-not-necessa ry
Exactly as I stated... a tiny group of animal rights loons at odds with the greater scientific community.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#19 Jan 14, 2014
Virgil Starkwell wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly as I stated... a tiny group of animal rights loons at odds with the greater scientific community.
It is the sign of a feeble and defeated mind that mocks those things it simply cannot comprehend.

Very few of the thousands of world renowned medical experts and researchers are Animal Rights Advocates. They just know bad science when they see it.

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."

Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.

"Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished."

Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.

"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."

Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."

Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.

"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known.

Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people.

The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."

Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

"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.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."

Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller M.D., 1976.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#20 Jan 14, 2014
Virgil Starkwell wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly as I stated... a tiny group of animal rights loons at odds with the greater scientific community.
It is the sign of a feeble and defeated mind that mocks those things it simply cannot comprehend.
Very few of the thousands of world renowned medical experts and researchers are Animal Rights Advocates. They just know bad science when they see it.
"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.
"Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished."
Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.
"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.
"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.
"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known.
Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people.
The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.
"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.
"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller M.D., 1976.
Fielding Mellish

Midland, TX

#21 Jan 14, 2014
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the sign of a feeble and defeated mind that mocks those things it simply cannot comprehend.
So you may be aware of your shortcomings after all.
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Very few of the thousands of world renowned medical experts and researchers are Animal Rights Advocates. They just know bad science when they see it.
Again, a minuscule percentage of the scientists who are well aware of the great benefits animal testing has developed for mankind.

Riddle me this one, Gertrude...

If you were bitten by an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, would you refuse treatment with the anti-venom because it was developed through animal testing?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Animal Rights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Please don't visit SeaWorld, Bob Barker asks in... (Jun '11) 13 hr John 141
Please Keep This Going Around The World - This ... Wed Grinning 614
Humane Society takes its Steak 'n Shake fight t... Oct 28 Randy Janssen 1
FBI turns animal cruelty into top-tier felony e... Oct 28 Go Blue Forever 76
Man arrested after having 'gentle sexual interc... Oct 27 beatlesinthebog 34
Report Abuse By "USA ROCKS" (May '14) Oct 22 USA R0CKS 15
2 arrested on animal cruelty charges out of Eas... (Oct '13) Oct 20 guest 31

Animal Rights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE