Animal Testing Cons

Animal Testing Cons

There are 44 comments on the Buzzle.com story from Aug 6, 2010, titled Animal Testing Cons. In it, Buzzle.com reports that:

Animal testing cons is the most debated topic, when it comes to conservation of the animal life around us.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Buzzle.com.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#23 Mar 14, 2012
Born to be bad wrote:
<quoted text>
Animal testing is not right!! What if they were testing the chemicals on u
There is not a need to test it on humans before we can increase the chances that it is safe by testing it on animals.
QWERTY

United States

#24 Mar 14, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is not a need to test it on humans before we can increase the chances that it is safe by testing it on animals.
The many differences - both obvious and very subtle - between humans and other species make animal experiments a waste of time, effort, money and lives - both human and animal. For example, Vioxx - the animal-tested arthritis drug - which was reported to have caused up to 140,000 heart attacks and strokes before being withdrawn. And the TGN1412 (‘elephant man’ drug) disaster that left six men with organ failure after tests on monkeys failed to predict these effects.

Time and time again, animal experiments have failed when their results have been applied to human beings. In fact, studies of the predictability of animal experiments consistently show them to be worse than random guesswork. For example, in one paper that reviewed drugs whose toxicity to humans caused their withdrawal from the market (1960-1990), only 4 out of 24 cases were predictable from animal data. In another review only 6 of 114 human toxicities had animal correlates.

Many drugs, which have been safety-tested in animals go on to cause serious side-effects, including death, in people. In 2006, the British Medical Association announced that at least 250,000 people are hospitalised every year as a result of adverse drug reactions. An earlier survey revealed that the annual death toll could be as high as 10,000. A 2004 study found that damaging side-effects of drugs are responsible for four per cent of hospital bed capacity and cost the NHS £466m a year.

Clearly, animal tests are failing to protect people. According to Hospital Doctor journal, only one per cent of adverse drug reactions are detected in trials. This is partly because common symptoms, such as nausea, dizziness, headaches and visual disturbance, are essentially impossible to detect in animals. Furthermore, the lives of commonly used laboratory animals are up to 66 times shorter than that of a human being - making it difficult to identify side effects that are slow to develop.

Dozens of treatments for stroke have been developed in animals but none has been successful in humans. And according to the US National Cancer Institute, cures for cancer have been lost because of experiments on animals.

Time and time again, primate research has failed to predict dangerous side effects of medications. It has also led researchers down blind alleys and delayed real cures reaching people.

For example:

Hormone replacement therapy - given to millions of women following research in monkeys - has recently been found to increase their risk of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer.
Isoprenaline doses (for asthma) were worked out on animals, but proved too high for humans. Thousands of people died as a result. Even when the researchers knew what to look for they were unable to reproduce this effect in monkeys.
Carbenoxalone caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. Scientists retrospectively tested it on monkeys, but could not reproduce this effect.
Flosint was tested on monkeys - they tolerated the medication well. In humans, however, it caused deaths.
Amrinone was tested on numerous non-human primates and released with confidence. People haemorrhaged, as the drug prevented normal blood clotting. This side effect occurred in a startling 20 per cent of patients taking the medication on a long-term basis.
Arthritis drug Opren is known to have killed 61 people. Over 3,500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren was tested on monkeys without problems.
Aspirin causes birth defects in monkeys but not in humans.
20 years and vast amounts of resources have been wasted on misleading AIDS research in animals. An important vaccine, Aidsvax - deemed a success in chimpanzees - was pronounced a failure in 2003 having failed to protect the 8,000 high-risk volunteers in the trial.
QWERTY

United States

#25 Mar 14, 2012
Alternatives to Animal Testing:

Stopping animal experiments will not mean an end to medical progress - far from it. But in order to obtain data that is applicable to human health, we need to focus our resources on human-based medicine and research methods. There is a whole range of modern, rapid and accurate tests now on stream:

Human Tissues: human cells, tissues and segments of DNA can be processed and assessed through highly sophisticated, rapid screening techniques.
Computer modelling: sophisticated computers can imitate the workings of the human body and duplicate the spread of disease so that researchers can predict how drugs will work and what effect they will have.
Microdosing: tiny amounts of an experimental drug are tracked in the human body by radioactive labelling.
DNA chips: allow thousands of genes to be monitored simultaneously for their response to a substance such as a new drug.
Microfluidics chips: contain tissue samples from various different parts of the human body in tiny chambers linked by microchannels, through which a blood substitute flows, to mimic, on a tiny scale, what goes on in the human body.
Scans: sophisticated MRI, CAT and PET scanners allow detailed analysis of the brains and other organs of conscious patients without surgery.
Epidemiology: the study and comparison of groups of people to analyse health problems.
Clinical case studies: monitoring illness in individual patients.
Post-mortem studies: examining the bodies of people who have died can give clues about disease.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#26 Mar 15, 2012
So your basic argument is that because it isn't perfect, it obviously never works. FALSE DICHOTOMY FTW!

Seriously, we have gained a better understanding of human disease because of animal testing. It has saved the lives of many humans. Animal testing is expensive. I am sure you could make a FORTUNE if you would start a business where you developed medications without "wasting" money on animal research. Why don't you do it and put the more wasteful companies out of business! Animals would love you forever and would show their gratitude to you for it on a daily basis! Just do it! It will be a "win" for everybody involved!
QWERTY

United States

#27 Mar 15, 2012
You can't spend your whole life trying to change real life facts fit your perception of reality. The facts are what they are, and they show that testing something on animals then hoping the results correlate to humans is a gamble and not as reliable as other methods. But the general public has this false belief that 'if it worked on a lab animal, it'll work on people'. Do you think the families of people who took flosint and died as a result were comfort ed by the fact it was tested on animals without any adverse reactions ? You will get better results testing new drugs on people than animals.

If I do start another business, it will be developing computer modeling for testing those drugs, not developing them.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#28 Mar 16, 2012
QWERTY wrote:
You can't spend your whole life trying to change real life facts fit your perception of reality. The facts are what they are, and they show that testing something on animals then hoping the results correlate to humans is a gamble and not as reliable as other methods. But the general public has this false belief that 'if it worked on a lab animal, it'll work on people'. Do you think the families of people who took flosint and died as a result were comfort ed by the fact it was tested on animals without any adverse reactions ? You will get better results testing new drugs on people than animals.
If I do start another business, it will be developing computer modeling for testing those drugs, not developing them.
Your opening sentence is exactly what I've told you and other ARAs since I started posting on these threads. One of those real life facts is that research of any kind is, by it's very nature, composed of numerous failures that lead to a single success. I give credit where credit is due. You are the first animal advocate posting on these threads who has expressed a desire to do the RIGHT thing. Start that business and develop a method of testing that doesn't require animals. That, my friend, is a normal sane idea. Other ARAs like Ahimsalife, UAAF, Lumpy, Mamasita, HAC, etc... advocate burning down colleges, blowing up cars, and all kinds of violence and destruction which will only lead to more violence and destruction. If you're half as intelligent and resourceful as you portray yourself to be, you should be able to make a constructive contribution.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#29 Mar 16, 2012
QWERTY wrote:
You can't spend your whole life trying to change real life facts fit your perception of reality. The facts are what they are, and they show that testing something on animals then hoping the results correlate to humans is a gamble and not as reliable as other methods. But the general public has this false belief that 'if it worked on a lab animal, it'll work on people'. Do you think the families of people who took flosint and died as a result were comfort ed by the fact it was tested on animals without any adverse reactions ? You will get better results testing new drugs on people than animals.
If I do start another business, it will be developing computer modeling for testing those drugs, not developing them.
That is a really strange thought pattern you have going there. So because 1 (or a few) drugs were tested on animals and then turned out to be dangerous to humans, then all of the testing on animals is a fails to yield valid results? Really? I recognize that this is yet another area that you are ignorant about. I will attempt to educate you. There are several steps involved in the development of medications. 1 of those steps is to test medications on animals. If the medication has pronounced side affects on animals, it isn't tested on humans. This process isn't fool proof and sometimes it tests fine on animals but not on humans but it does identify a good number of potential pitfalls which is why companies do it. Like I said, if you have a superior business model, put it into action. You can drive the companies out of business by offering a cheaper and more effective product by skipping the animal testing step. Unfortunately for you, your business model (as things stand now) will not work because animal testing is vital to developing meds and skipping it would create tons of problems.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#30 Mar 16, 2012
Squach wrote:
<quoted text> If you're half as intelligent and resourceful as you portray yourself to be, you should be able to make a constructive contribution.
She first needs to educate herself about the scientific process before she gets too involved with her computer program. She completely misses the basics and therefore draws erroneous conclusions. She has a long way to go before she is going to contribute anything to anybody.
QWERTY

United States

#31 Mar 17, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a really strange thought pattern you have going there. So because 1 (or a few) drugs were tested on animals and then turned out to be dangerous to humans, then all of the testing on animals is a fails to yield valid results? Really? I recognize that this is yet another area that you are ignorant about. I will attempt to educate you. There are several steps involved in the development of medications. 1 of those steps is to test medications on animals. If the medication has pronounced side affects on animals, it isn't tested on humans. This process isn't fool proof and sometimes it tests fine on animals but not on humans but it does identify a good number of potential pitfalls which is why companies do it. Like I said, if you have a superior business model, put it into action. You can drive the companies out of business by offering a cheaper and more effective product by skipping the animal testing step. Unfortunately for you, your business model (as things stand now) will not work because animal testing is vital to developing meds and skipping it would create tons of problems.
One of the greatest discoveries in medicine was penicillin. Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, as it would have killed those species. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#32 Mar 17, 2012
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the greatest discoveries in medicine was penicillin. Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, as it would have killed those species. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.
Once again, you point to the exemption and claim it is the rule. If you can eliminate animal testing and provide an equally safe product for less money, DO IT! The reason that nobody has use your "superior" business model is because it is destined for failure.
QWERTY

United States

#33 Mar 17, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you point to the exemption and claim it is the rule. If you can eliminate animal testing and provide an equally safe product for less money, DO IT! The reason that nobody has use your "superior" business model is because it is destined for failure.
I never claimed these many 'exceptions' to be the rule. They are used to illuminate the inherent false assumptions that pharmaceutical efficacy in animals accurately tracks in humans.

The alternatives to animal testing in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other products is already taking place, and will one day be the norm. Bureaucracy and lawyers are standing in the way of progress. They, like you, are a pimple on the ass of progress.
Tasty Meat

Chicago, IL

#34 Mar 19, 2012
Nobody with a life worth living would give a ratsazz about a few worthless lab rodents
Tasty Meat

Chicago, IL

#36 Mar 20, 2012
hunters are COWARDS wrote:
<quoted text>Rodents have far more worth and intelligence, than a witless, no life POS like YOU. take a hike, pathetic loser.
Did you know? Cooked rat tastes similar to pork I personally would recomend grilling

Since: Jan 09

KEEP OUT

#38 Mar 20, 2012
hunters are COWARDS wrote:
<quoted text>No doubt your filthy trailer is infested with rats. Hopefully one day they will attack and end your pointless existence. stupid, stupid dlckless no life troll.
We know there are no rats in your enclosure.

Your handlers are sure to keep plenty of neck snapping rat traps around because of the strong aroma of feces.

“go big or go home”

Since: Mar 12

Funkytown

#39 Mar 20, 2012
We have to test things on living creatures. It's a have too. If you don't like it be the first to be in line to take the test.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#40 Mar 22, 2012
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
I never claimed these many 'exceptions' to be the rule. They are used to illuminate the inherent false assumptions that pharmaceutical efficacy in animals accurately tracks in humans.
What are you talking about? Nobody claims that this "accurately" translates to humans. False positive and false negatives are a known part of the medical community. Tests yield false results quite frequently. This is absolutely known. This is normal. why do you take known and normal phenomenon and attempt to spin it into something that it is not?
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>The alternatives to animal testing in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and other products is already taking place, and will one day be the norm. Bureaucracy and lawyers are standing in the way of progress. They, like you, are a pimple on the ass of progress.
I have stated many times that when there are alternatives to animal testing that yield better results at a cheaper cost that do not pose a threat to humans, I am all for it. By your own admission, we are not there yet. While it may "one day be the norm," today is not that day and it isn't looking good for tomorrow either. The time simply isn't here...yet.
Kayla

North Salem, NY

#41 Mar 22, 2012
bustin your chops wrote:
nothing can stop it when it comes to science.if that was the case it wouldn't be going on everywhere.
Everyone needs to stop freaking out- this guy's obviously using satire.
QWERTY

United States

#42 Mar 22, 2012
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? Nobody claims that this "accurately" translates to humans. False positive and false negatives are a known part of the medical community. Tests yield false results quite frequently. This is absolutely known. This is normal. why do you take known and normal phenomenon and attempt to spin it into something that it is not?
This from the Queen of The Spinning Class, the Mayor of Spin City. If deaths and serious side effects resulting from false positives and negatives are to be considered 'normal' outcomes of animal testing, and acceptable, then you haven't been paying attention. Leading scientists and medical researchers have debunked the use of animals in testing human medicine and have championed better alternatives such as embryonic stem cell research, human tissue, and computer modeling which are more accurate predictors of drug interactions in humans than are non humans. Even if it did cost more, can you put a price on accuracy ?
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have stated many times that when there are alternatives to animal testing that yield better results at a cheaper cost that do not pose a threat to humans, I am all for it. By your own admission, we are not there yet. While it may "one day be the norm," today is not that day and it isn't looking good for tomorrow either. The time simply isn't here...yet.
You must work for Berman.

“Animal Testing Saves Lives”

Since: Apr 11

And Saving Lives is Good

#43 Mar 27, 2012
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
This from the Queen of The Spinning Class, the Mayor of Spin City. If deaths and serious side effects resulting from false positives and negatives are to be considered 'normal' outcomes of animal testing, and acceptable, then you haven't been paying attention.
False positives and false negatives are the reality of all forms of testing. It is "normal" because it cannot be avoided.
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>Leading scientists and medical researchers have debunked the use of animals in testing human medicine and have championed better alternatives such as embryonic stem cell research, human tissue, and computer modeling which are more accurate predictors of drug interactions in humans than are non humans. Even if it did cost more, can you put a price on accuracy ?
Actually, you are incorrect. Animal testing is still used because it is still effective in terms of the results and in terms of cost. It is the prudent way to go to gain knowledge. If you have a superior business model, I suggest you put it into practice. You would make BILLIONS while at the same time "saving" animals that you view as being precious. It sounds like a win all around for your subjective reality. The only question that remains is why you haven't done so and the answer to that question is what my entire point has been so far.
Animal Testing Rocks

Nelson, New Zealand

#45 May 30, 2012
Animal testing is the best thing since sliced bread, all you bitches going on about how it's wrong are retarded. Frankly I find it funny how the animals are put through cruel treatments. Hell if I was one of thouse scientists I would cut of the animals gentials.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Canada's dog dumping is a sign of bigger problem 22 hr chuglesspeg 13
News Grab a Pussy!': PETA Billboards Urging Pet Adop... (Oct '16) Mon Squach 2,774
News Malicious-prosecution suit against Joe Arpaio g... Dec 6 WelbyMD 4
News Malnourished, dead animals found at Vienna resi... (Sep '12) Dec 5 quacker worket 3
News PETA requests animal treatment lessons followin... (Apr '17) Dec 3 common sense 10
News Dog abusers sue rescue group (Oct '11) Dec 2 Samantha Hodge 36
News $5,000 Reward Offered To Help Locate Suspect(s)... Dec 1 They cannot kill ... 2
More from around the web