And your proof that antivenom was developed exclusively through animal testing is? Maybe you are confusing production with development?<quoted text> So you may be aware of your shortcomings after all.
<quoted text>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?
The horrific images, videos, and tales of animal experimentation that occur inside laboratories around the world are undoubtedly and disappointingly true.Full Story
#22 Jan 14, 2014
#23 Jan 14, 2014
"Snake antivenom,(snake antivenin, snake antivenene) is a biological product that typically consists of venom neutralizing antibodies derived from a host animal, such as a horse or sheep. The host animal is hyperimmunized to one or more snake venoms, a process which creates an immunological response that produces large numbers of neutralizing antibodies against various components (toxins) of the venom. The antibodies are then collected from the host animal, and further processed into snake antivenom for the treatment of envenomation. Internationally, snake antivenoms must conform to the standards of Pharmacopoeia and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Yours is a typical, obfuscating dodge by a conflicted animal rights loon. Rather than being a coward, just admit you would accept the anti-venom treatment. We already know you would unless your even dumber than you appear to be..
#24 Jan 14, 2014
That is how it is produced, you claimed that were it not for animal testing and experimentation, it would not have been developed. I told you you were confusing production with development.
As for whether or not I would take the antivenom, it is a moot point. I have a better chance of needing medical attention for a lightning strike. Even if I were bitten, estimates show that 20-25% of all pit viper bites and 50% of Coral Snake bites are dry bites.
Now, back to the debate. Show me where animal experimentation is a scientific necessity, not that it is done, but that it is absolutely necessary for developing substances or techniques necessary for human survival or quality of life. Remember, legal and monetary reasons are not scientific ones.
#25 Jan 14, 2014
I forgot that you can't comprehend six is half a dozen. Snakes are kept and milked for venom and sheep and horses are used as hosts to produce the antibodies for anti-venom. Two or more separate animal species involved in this scientific process. Your denial continues to be laughable and exposes you as the desperate, fumbling dolt you are.
No, it IS the whole point. You are a fraud. You know damn well you would take the anti-venom if you needed it. You would even beg for it if necessary.
No one cares about you lame attempt at obfuscation. Like I said, if you needed anti-venom, you would even beg for it, regardless of how many animals were used.
All you want to do is change the subject because your hypocrisy and the gaping holes in your ideology have been exposed. You have already seen a list of just some of the diseases that have been eliminated through animal research. Advances have also been made in HIV, Cancer and heart disease through animal research. Calling all of this unnecessary makes you look like a major dumbass. Perhaps one day computer models will get it done, but that day has not arrived; not even close.
#26 Jan 14, 2014
The fraudster is in Midland, TX. Show me where animals were EXPERIMENTED on in the development of antivenom, cite the research - bet you can't. You are the one being lame at obfuscation. I asked for development, not production, and you gave me production; what do you call that.
What color was the Kool Aid you drank?
Why do leading cancer researchers say the only thing they have been able to do is cure cancer in the animals they gave it to. Penicillin was a fluke, had a different animal been given it, it would have died, and penicillin would never have been made available. Pasteur had no idea his rabies vaccine would work on humans because he knew there was no way to make a correlation between humans and non-humans, and risked life in prison when he injected that boy. All of the great advances in medicine are due to clinical observation of those with the disease or malady and studying them.
Shall we again go over the list of drugs that passed the animal test, but ended up killing thousands of people?
Animals are used in experiments for two reasons:
Greed by those who profit from it and pay lobbyists to ensure governments require it
Drug companies for CYA
You know so little, it's hard to keep up with what you don't know
#27 Jan 14, 2014
"The only way to evaluate the net pathological effect of venom is
to use a living system, usually a rodent, and similarly, the efficacy of antivenoms is also measured in vivo. The pre-clinical testing of antivenoms in animals is therefore a legal requirement in many countries and is strictly monitored by governmentauthorities."
I see you're still stuck on stupid. No surprise there.
It's pretty evident that you opted to drink the goat urine instead. I can keep your secret.
Yes... yes, I see it now... everything is a great conspiracy. BTW, how was your date with the tooth fairy ?
#28 Jan 14, 2014
See what happens when you don't read the whole article.
"They may depend on the assumption that the animal or pharmacological substrates used in the test have human counterparts and extrapolation from in vitro results to the
in vivo clinical situation may be perilous. The most acceptable in vitro assays, both scientifically and ethically are those in which human tissue is used."
The pre-clinical testing of antivenoms in animals is therefore a legal requirement in many countries and is strictly monitored by government authorities. Legal is not scientific.
Try again Mary.
#29 Jan 15, 2014
You lost Gertrude. You were proven wrong once again.
Live with it because you have no choice.
#30 Jan 15, 2014
You couldn't prove water is wet, Nancy Drew. Once again, to quote the article YOU cited:
" The most acceptable in vitro assays, both scientifically and ethically are those in which human tissue is used."
"The pre-clinical testing of antivenoms in animals is therefore a legal requirement..." Legal NOT scientific or necessary.
Tis' the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.
I have shown you the sky, but what good is the sky to a creature who'll never do better than crawl.
Are there any books in your library besides coloring books?
I look forward to your next pathetic attempt at redemption as laughter is medicine for the soul. And your posts are gut busting guffaws. Blog on, Blogosaurus.
#31 Jan 15, 2014
Typical animal rights loon; you are proven wrong so you attempt to move the goal post. Legal vs. scientific is irrelevant here even though science is applied throughout the process. Animal use in the development and production of anti-venom have both been proven... you lose. This is what happens when you adhere to an anti-human ideology laden with emotional drivel and little substance. You are the proverbial loser who brings a rubber knife to a gun fight but then that is your history on these forums. It would be best if you stopped letting your cabbage patch doll do your thinking.
#32 Jan 15, 2014
Typical Dark Ages thinking. You won't let go of that which has proven wrong simply because 'we've always done it that way'.
You don't even know what the debate is about. It is NOT whether or not animals are or were used in experiments. I'll give you a hint: " The most acceptable in vitro assays, both scientifically and ethically are those in which human tissue is used." (Guess where I got that from - go ahead, guess).
By clinging to an outdated methodology that clearly does not work, it is you who has an anti-human agenda and ideology.
"Another case in point was Andreas Vesalius, a Belgian who taught anatomy in Padua, Italy. It was around the same time as Galilei that Vesalius, by dissecting cadavers of the hanged (a practice that had been strictly forbidden until then, ever since antiquity), revealed that many of Galen's descriptions of the human anatomy were wrong, because Galen had based them on the dissections of animals. Again science clashed with official science when Vesalius revealed the truth - he was accused of "heresy and folly," and had to flee, fearing for his life. For example, Galen had described the human hipbone as being flared, like that of the ox, and when Vesalius corrected him, his peers, the university teachers, unwilling to admit that they had perpetuated a millenarian error, explained that since Galen's day the human hipbone must have changed shape because of the habit of wearing pants instead of the toga!
Although the truth was evident for all to see, the Galenic errors survived for another 200 years
in the seats of learning, proving once more that no ignorance is so stubborn as the ignorance
of the learned."
"Contrary to their general conviction, human beings, with rare exceptions are not mentally free, they shy away from venturing into independent thought, from treading unexplored territory; most of all, they are afraid of spurning the dogmas that have molded them, and of distancing themselves, also intellectually, from the herd. They feel safer following a leader, some kind of father image, even without knowing his intimate nature, and not seriously worrying about where this leader might lead them. The moment individuals join a marching herd, every thought process ceases. In fact, they feel freer in following some unknown leader than in having no leader to follow and being obliged to do their own thinking."
"The laws that exist in most so-called civilized countries still permit, at best by omission, any and every kind of cruelty to animals, if done under the pretext of medical research, or
"science", But since medicine is, by its own admission, not an exact science, and a science
that is not exact is no science at all, but an oxymoron (a combination of contradictions), the
cruelty carried out on animals is not only unscientific but illegal. And yet, in many countries,
regulations established by the so-called health authorities actually impose those unscientific,
Illegal tests. How is it possible? It is rendered possible by a fact that the public blissfully
ignores, namely that the same health authorities who imposes those regulations are in the
employ of the drug industry* which prescribes those notoriously unreliable tests on animals
for the very reason that they are unreliable: they provide the necessary alibi every time a new
pharmacological disaster occurs. Very few people are aware of that. They reason: if there are
regulations, they must be good, in the public interest, like the laws against theft and armed
#33 Jan 15, 2014
^First you post this.^... and I proved you wrong.
^Then you post this^... another attempt at obfuscation. The debate is about whether or not research on animals has helped humankind and clearly, it has, despite your lame denials.
Great. This I can believe. So you are volunteering to be a test subject? Drop your shorts, princess ! Or perhaps you're not quite that dedicated to the cause.
The rest of your rant is nothing but opinion and we all know what that's worth.
#34 Jan 16, 2014
To show you there are no hard feelings, I would like to thank you for this paragraph as it describes animal rights minions with uncanny accuracy.
#35 Jan 17, 2014
oh my sweet lord. that can't be right.
“Scabies are people too!”
Since: Apr 11
Killing scabies IS MURDER!
#36 Jan 18, 2014
Nobody has ever claimed that animal testing proves safety and efficacy. The fact that you say this shows your ignorance of the process. Animal testing is 1 step in a long process. It is also a critical step. If it weren't beneficial, companies wouldn't do it. If you are opposed to life saving drugs, simply do not take them but don't kill people because of some strange belief/moral system that doesn't value human life. Be a better person than that.
#37 Jan 19, 2014
wrong again unsung blockhead. we have already been down this road countless times. animal testing is a well known scientific fraud. and your gradeschool logic and redundant gradeschool bullying and bogus demeanor is, indeed a very pathetic sight.
“Scabies are people too!”
Since: Apr 11
Killing scabies IS MURDER!
#38 Jan 19, 2014
So don't partake of the human medical field. never see a doctor. Refuse any and all medical treatment. Oh wait, you only care about living critters so long as they don't make you itchy. If they make you itchy, you kill them without a 2nd thought. You are a hypocrite.
#39 Jan 19, 2014
I got no problem with testing on animals, companys wouldn't waste time and cash if there weren't any benefit
#40 Jan 19, 2014
How would you know anything about animal testing or anything else? You don't do any research; you spend all your time judging posts multiple times.
#41 Jan 20, 2014
100% pure kidblather. run with the pack.
Add your comments below
|Entertainment Animals: An Exhibit Of Barbarity||16 hr||David||3|
|Please Keep This Going Around The World - This ...||19 hr||Nurse Suzie||561|
|PETA offers humane education in wake of teen's ...||Sep 16||Kurtz||1|
|See it: Boy throws puppy into street, grandfath...||Sep 12||Linda||1|
|I need YOUR help! Please.||Sep 10||Elephant Hunter||7|
|No Charges For Farm Owner in Cow Beating Video (Jul '10)||Sep 9||Farm Kid||15|
|Severely burned dog found in Fort Myers||Sep 9||Squach||80|
Find what you want!
Search Animal Rights Forum Now