Peta and my thoughts...

[jojocola]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I want to address this issue (or rant heheh)to people whom are most likely smarter than I 🙂 And also since your going to, hopefully, be using medical related instruments and chemicals that have been tried on animals that could have suffered in the process.

I did this outline real quick but it gets the point across. Grammar people pleaSE give me a break! 😡
Personal thinking outline

What is peta?

Peta stands for People for the Ethical treatment of animals. Almost self explanatory.

-It sounds like almost everyone would agree to their cause; however, they go about trying to enforce their “ways” by using lucrative tactics. An example, Peta had a daddy campaign that said something along the lines that daddy is a killer for going fishing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but kids are not going to test scientific studies on your beloved animals. This tactic reminds me of the tabacco industry that aims its furture to the young audiences. How? Oh come on, what about all the subtle advertisements that have “cool” people smoke. Another example would be its “scare tactics.” Lets show the public cruel animal beatings as say this is how a majority of farms are. I don’t believe it. There are most likely those farms that do beat their animals, but it is definitely a small portion. Who is to say the footage is real? How do we know it wasn’t set up to further PETA’s views on animal farms? Totally unthinkable? I think not.


Living coherently without killing animals?

- too many animals
-nueter millions and millions of dogs?
-put to sleep? obviously out of the question for peta
-put them in control groups? yeah... right
-an idea

Raised and grown with strict rules and care-- to eat
-animals will feel no pain
-animals will live a life of exercise and love
-animals will live a little bit past maturity before painlessly put down.
still bad to eat?
-Animal testing

-cosmetic testing, strict rules concerning safety and livelihood of animal(s) in its present and for future condition. Wrong? Would you rather put on make up that has yet to be tested on a living being? Would you rather a person (usually in great in of financial stability--i.e. the homeless, or yet to be homeless[not to turn this into a racial concern however, what racial culture do you think will be the majority test patients?.]) be the first tester?




medical reasons

how can you oppose this? ... were going to find the cure for cancer testing on human guinea pigs? Have you had a family member die to a disease that has yet a cure?
-<http://aidsresearcher.typepad.com>
-"Today, there are 37 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS. In the past 25 years, 20 million people have died from AIDS. By 2010, 44 million children will have been orphaned by the disease."
-"PeTA’s President Ingrid Newkirk once said even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, “we’d be against it.”"
-Would the testing on a few animals be considered inhumane to save millions of people who die from cancer and aids? Would it be inhumane if a humans were to test on themselves to save millions of animals?
-Okay, the people that are testing on your beloved animals are doctors/PHDs. They have had the most gruesome college experience (8+ years), they did not do it for fun. They, like people from the Peta organization, value "life." I'm sure if they could make the research more "humane" they would have done so, or already did. (I will explain more about this later)
-There are many Doctors/PHDs, trying their best to find a cure to save millions of people from dieing every year from aids. This case is especially true for Africans, as we, Americans, know fully well they are suffering the most from the devastation that is AIDS/HIV.
-Stopping animal testing will drammatically slow down aids/hiv research. How are you going to tell people that you want to slow down research for the cure to aids(and cancer)? The person that might also be your friends? Your neighbors? Or better yet your family? Or even worse the children who have contracted aids(AND CANCER!!) by unfateful ways?(maybe for the case of aids, rape/child molestation) No matter what you think about the situation, they are going to die early if a cure is not found. Go ahead and tell them you want elongate the time for a cure or finding that will help them live happier and healthier.


Websites that agree, or have people/commenters that do.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3735199.stm>

LABORATORY ISSUES

The forum administrator of www.PETA2.com, username “PETA2_ADMINISTRATOR” said and I quote,

“Unfortunately, government regulations have not kept pace with science. The federal government relies almost entirely on animal tests in setting human health policies, despite the availability of non-animal technologies such as human clinical and epidemiological studies, autopsy reports, cadaver-based experiments, and computer simulators, all of which are faster, more reliable, and more humane than animal tests. Human cell cultures and tissue studies, in vitro tests, and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the human body’s natural properties and provide scientists with less expensive alternatives to animal tests. In addition, a number of sophisticated computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts. To learn more, please visit http://www.StopAnimalTests.com.”

Many laboratories have clinics that tend to animals needs and living environment.

-"The animals which are tested on are bred for the purpose and kept in good conditions. The regulations surrounding keeping animals for scientific tests in the UK are some of the most comprehensive in the world. These regulations are defined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and include rules so places where animals are kept are inspected to ensure they are kept under certain conditions."

Animal testing "patients" are kept in the best conditions possible.

-"The tests which animals are subjected to are main as painless as possible. If a procedure is going to cause discomfort an animal is given painkillers. If a surgical procedure is taking place the animal is given anesthetic. As the animals spend most of their time in cages rather than being tested on the cages they are kept on are spacious and they animals are giving things to increase their happiness such as providing mice and other rodents with bedding material and tubs to crawl through, ensuring that dogs have contact with other dogs and with humans and that monkeys are provided with ropes and climbing frames. All of this means that the animals are kept in the nest conditions possible and they undergo the minimum of discomfort. Animals which are considered to be intelligent like chimpanzees and gorillas are banned from use in animal tests"

Yes, there are new technologies to help us further understand and aid in experimenting. However, do you truly believe that testing on non-living specimens will give an acceptable result? And by acceptable, I mean will computer tests be thorough enough to then after use on a human being?

“The federal government relies almost entirely on animal tests in setting human health policies, despite the availability of non-animal technologies such as human clinical and epidemiological studies, autopsy reports, cadaver-based experiments, and computer simulators, all of which are faster, more reliable, and more humane than animal tests. Human cell cultures and tissue studies, in vitro tests, and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the human body’s natural properties and provide scientists with less expensive alternatives to animal tests. In addition, a number of sophisticated computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts.”

The researchers are not making money by using animal testing as opposed to using new technology. What other intent do they have other than to help humanity! They don’t want to hurt animals!

“Animal testing is an expensive time consuming procedure which although results in drugs being produced which can create large amounts of profit for a pharmaceutical company the process itself isn't very profitable due the expense of keeping the animals in good conditions. Non animal methods are far cheap and if the tests were only carried out with an eye on profit it would be those which are used instead of animal tests.”


<http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Animal%20Testing.htm>


Organizations that benefit from animal testing!
-Do you support:
Honorary Spokesperson Neurofibromato is Association (U.K.)
American Liver Foundation
Canadian Liver Foundation
Lee National Denim Day
amFAR gala
Quilts of Inspiration
Breast Cancer Research Fund
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Neil Bogart Memorial Fund
Discovery Fund for Eye Research
Village Care of New York’s Network of AIDS Services
Cystic Fibrosis & Cancer charities
Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre(Austria)
Diabetes Research Institute
Multiple Sclerosis research
All of these organizations benefit tremendously from animal research.
<http://aidsresearcher.typepad.com>


RAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you guys think?

 

[jojocola]

Oh and while your giving me your wonderful thoughts, help me on my grammar for this one sentence please.

I want to address this issue (or rant heheh)to people whom are most likely smarter than I.

Is it whom or is it who?

 

[kevster2001]

Well, i work in a mouse lab and I wouldn't really consider the life of a test mouse that exciting. They get roughly a 6'' x 12'' box. Theres bedding but that's abotu it. They share that space with 4 other mice (assuming the weaning goes according to schedule, ive seen some bad ones). We click their toes to number them and cut a piece of the tail for genotyping. All this is done w/o anesthesia. I'm not raelly supporting PETA but I'm saying theres no point in trying to say everything is painless and honkeydorey for the mice either.

And as far as killing the mice goes, the usual procedure is to CO2 them then pull their head while grabbing the tail which is suppose to cervically dislocate them. But apparently theres been incidences of where the CO2 had worn off and for some reason the cervical dislocation either did not occur or was not done properly. So essentially the mice wake up in a small plastic ziplock bag packed in with about 10-15 of its other buddies in a dark fridge with their head half attached to their spine.

Is it worth it? hell yes, they're just animals. But let's not kid ourselves, it's still fvcked up. Oh and the videos make sense because economically that's what a company would do

 

[MacGyver]

The Metro Rail in DC has a number of anti-PETA ads posted on thier trains with some of the outrageous quotes by PETA. One quote posted by the head of PETA was something like "even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we still wouldnt support it"

Lets be clear, they are absolute radicals. Even if 100% of all medical research was done with zero pain to the animals, they STILL would not support it.

I'm all for banning cosmetics research on animals, but PETA wont stop there. They are so radicalized they want a total ban on all animal research, no matter what kind of safeguards are put in place to minimize animal pain/suffering.

PETA really does think that animals are absolute, full equivalents to humans.

 

[DrMom]

moving to the topics in healthcare forum...

 

[dnw826]

Wow, dude. You really don't understand animal rights activists, do you? I'm one and I think most of what you wrote is nonsense. Actually, many of us do not think that every incidence of euthanasia is uncalled for like you imply. Neutering is a very good idea. It is mainly human fault that has led to such huge populations of sick and mistreated animals. I used to live in a huge college town where these stupid students would get a pet for a semester, not fix it, and then let it go in the wild because mommy and daddy don't want it to come back home. How about educating people on the proper way to care for an animal and how to become a smart pet "owner"?

And with the meat industry-most of the time (okay, almost 99% of the time), the animals are raised in HORRIBLE conditions. Have you read anything about this, or have you been to many farms? A good deal of small time farms are very nice and I don't have much against them at all. But that's not where most of your meat comes from. Factory farming-grinding live chicks, the calving industry, the DAIRY industry (by far one of the worst industries), etc.

And animal testing is most certainly not humane in most cases I have seen first hand. One of my previous professors was one of my dh's research advisors. SHe was creepy. She would cut a live turtle in half with no second thought. Or once (maybe more, I only know of once personally) she killed a squirrel by sticking a needle into it's heart and sucking the blood out of it. Yeah, very humane. What a good life to live.

And many companies do not test on animals and they do just fine. I personally of weary of putting anything on myself that would need to be tested first on an animal for it's safety. Unless it is used to save lives. And even then, there are certainly less cruel ways than those used today.

And I do not buy the whole intelligence in animals debate. Personally, and I know not everyone will agree with me, but I do not believe that there is a definable way to test intelligence in an animal. I think that it is a vain human idea that only humans are intelligent, but dolphins and chimps and apes are too, because they are cute and act human-like. Whatever.

And you gave a good bit of information that makes me believe that animal testing is even worse than I thought in terms of it's usefulness and lack of other options.

Now I do believe that the scare tactics used by Peta are stupid. But, at least they get their point across. And it certainly isn't any worse than the nonsense propaganda spewed forth by the meat and dairy industry everywhere we look.

I will rant more later. A bit busy right now.

 

[dnw826]

PETA really does think that animals are absolute, full equivalents to humans.

I agree. I love animals. I consider them my equals and I TRY to live by those standards.

 

[kate_g]

Some PETA members were recently arrested... for animal cruelty.

My details are a little sketchy maybe, but I'm sure you can find articles about it online. Basically they had some program where they were taking dogs from overcrowded urban shelters and shipping them to suburban/rural places so that they could get good homes rather than being euthanized. It was woefully unsuccessful, because suburban/rural shelters are overcrowded too. So what did they do? They claimed it was a resounding success, really reducing the overcrowding. Except that they were actually taking dogs from overcrowded shelters, hoarding them somewhere, then killing them and throwing the bodies in dumpsters. The actual charge, I think, was that the euthanasia was not performed in the approved humane way, or not overseen by a licensed vet, or something.

I think very few *individual* animal rights activists are evil - misguided in many cases, maybe, but not evil. My objection to PETA is that it's a political organization, not an animal welfare organization. Obviously the organization is willing to do horribly cruel things to animals in order to further their political goals, and that's just wrong no matter how you feel about any other issue. In PETA's political agenda of animal rights, there's actually very little room for animal welfare.

(OP, in response to your second post, the correct wording in that sentence is "who". 🙂 )

 

[prana_md]

My objection to PETA is that it's a political organization, not an animal welfare organization.

Wow, this is a great point. I had sort of hazy objections to PETA, but this totally crystalizes it for me. I was an environmental studies major, and political or theoretical groups bugged me. Shouldn't we have been planting trees or something???

As for fishing, fishermen (uh, fisherpeople?) have been instrumental in advocating for clean waterways and endangered fish species.

Acting ethically toward animals is so much larger than fur coats. What about habitat destruction due to our rapacious appetite for oil? If we could farm animals ethically and sustainably, leave some forests standing for owls and whatnot, and ride our bikes instead of driving our SUVs, then I'd be comfortable with anesthetizing and decapitating a few rodents for medicine. (My shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals, thanks.)

Below ... one of my "lab rats." (does PETA frown on pets?)

 

[mshheaddoc]

When it concerns medical research I do not personally approve of using animals but I know it must be done. I will never do research on live specimens if I know it will hurt them or if I will have to kill them. As much as it was neat to dissect a rat, it was still a little freaky. I don't want to kill it but I'll do it if need be. I think its the emotional attachment I have to my animals that I spread to others. Part of the reason I couldn't become a vet. All animals can feel pain and to treat them unethically is horrible. Those are the times when I feel PETA is good to have around. My husband wants to get some cattle for his parents farm so we can get farm discounts, but I told him I couldn't kill the cattle if we got them because they'd be pets then 😀 Yes kind of silly but that is just how I feel.

I recognize that we must experiment and use animals to survive but to torture them in the process is horrible. 🙁 I support what PETA stands for but not to the extremes that they implement.

 

[velo]

As I skimmed over the first post I thought to myself, "who on a medical student message board would be dumb enough to oppose animal research?" And then, I scrolled....

 

[nebrfan]

Living coherently without killing animals?

- too many animals
-nueter millions and millions of dogs?
-put to sleep? obviously out of the question for peta
-put them in control groups? yeah... right

AACCTTUUAALLYY....From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA euthanized over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group euthanized over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone -- adopting out only 6.8%.

 

[prana_md]

AACCTTUUAALLYY....From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA euthanized over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group euthanized over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone -- adopting out only 6.8%.

Holy cow! (Pun intended) I did a quick google search and sampled some adoption rates from shelters. They're around 70-80%. Still, the Humane Society estimates that 3-4 million animals in shelters are euthanized every year. I guess PETA is just doing its part?

 

[prana_md]

As I skimmed over the first post I thought to myself, "who on a medical student message board would be dumb enough to oppose animal research?" And then, I scrolled....

I think it's reasonable to be bothered by animal research and want it conducted in as humane a way possible, but still understand its necessity.

For people who work or have worked in an animal lab, are there rules governing how you treat lab animals?

 

[kate_g]

(My shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals, thanks.)

You need to understand, though, that your shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals because every single one of the ingredients in the formulation has been tested on animals in the past and is "Generally Recognized As Safe" or has been approved for human exposure up to some concentration or whatever. I think it's reprehensible that shampoo companies get to put "not tested on animals" on their products, meaning that *they* didn't do any animal testing, when the only reason they can sell those products is because of past animal testing. Your use of shampoo makes you partly responsible for that original research. Thinking about it that way is unpleasant, but not thinking about it that way is socially irresponsible.

The more extreme version of this is the animal-rights attitude that pisses me off most (not accusing *you* of this, prana_md, just related): "Animal research is wrong and we should absolutely not do any more of it ever again, starting right now... But I'm going to get my kids vaccinated because the animals used to develop currently existing technology are already dead and it would be disrespectful not to use that knowledge..."

 

[dnw826]

Wow, this is a great point. I had sort of hazy objections to PETA, but this totally crystalizes it for me. I was an environmental studies major, and political or theoretical groups bugged me. Shouldn't we have been planting trees or something???

As for fishing, fishermen (uh, fisherpeople?) have been instrumental in advocating for clean waterways and endangered fish species.

Acting ethically toward animals is so much larger than fur coats. What about habitat destruction due to our rapacious appetite for oil? If we could farm animals ethically and sustainably, leave some forests standing for owls and whatnot, and ride our bikes instead of driving our SUVs, then I'd be comfortable with anesthetizing and decapitating a few rodents for medicine. (My shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals, thanks.)

Below ... one of my "lab rats." (does PETA frown on pets?)

👍

Some do object to pets, but I don't know many who do. I have pets, and I don't consider it cruel. They are by far the most spoiled things in the world. They don't seem to object.

 

[dnw826]

You need to understand, though, that your shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals because every single one of the ingredients in the formulation has been tested on animals in the past and is "Generally Recognized As Safe" or has been approved for human exposure up to some concentration or whatever. I think it's reprehensible that shampoo companies get to put "not tested on animals" on their products, meaning that *they* didn't do any animal testing, when the only reason they can sell those products is because of past animal testing. Your use of shampoo makes you partly responsible for that original research. Thinking about it that way is unpleasant, but not thinking about it that way is socially irresponsible.

The more extreme version of this is the animal-rights attitude that pisses me off most (not accusing *you* of this, prana_md, just related): "Animal research is wrong and we should absolutely not do any more of it ever again, starting right now... But I'm going to get my kids vaccinated because the animals used to develop currently existing technology are already dead and it would be disrespectful not to use that knowledge..."

Don't start me on vaccinations. Have you seen what's in those things? I guess on an aside, I am opposed to unnecessary vaxing. I think that we should be more choosy. But maybe that's because I was given the chicken pox vax 7 times AFTER I had the chick pox...

 

[docB]

Your use of shampoo makes you partly responsible for that original research. Thinking about it that way is unpleasant, but not thinking about it that way is socially irresponsible.

That’s a really fascinating point of view. It would seem you are saying that everyone who uses a product, or a derivative of a product, that was tested on animals is guilty of harming those animals even if that harm happened before they were born. That really is blaming the child for the sins of the father. How far are you willing to take that type of reasoning? Medicine as a field has experimented on animals and even people in some really heinous and unregulated ways. Is it the duty of all socially conscious people to eschew medicine? As an ER doc I’ve learned/practiced skills like intubation and DPL on experimental animals. Does that mean that any patients who benefit from my care are guilty? Should I be required to warn patients that by seeing me they become “partly responsible” for that animal experimentation. Since everyone alive is descended from someone who has eaten meat is everyone guilty because they have benefited from it? It’s not “socially irresponsible” to refuse to assume guilt from the past transgressions of others.

 

[velo]

I think it's reasonable to be bothered by animal research and want it conducted in as humane a way possible, but still understand its necessity.

For people who work or have worked in an animal lab, are there rules governing how you treat lab animals?

Well yeah but it doesn't seem to me that this is PETA's position. I don't know, maybe "PETA" just gets a knee-jerk from me because I spent 2.5 yrs in ugrad in a lab that worked with mice and primates, spent a good portion of those two years choppin' up monkey and rat brain, and our school had a PETAesqe student group (franchise, satellite whatever you want to call it).

Anyway, institutions have ethics committees about animal research, and while its fine to protest when you think that research can be done in a more humane way, PETAs position (as near as I can tell from having them yell at me) has always been that they want no animal research period. That's stupid for a multitude of reasons that I don't think I need to list for this audience.

Anyway, they're just animals. Treat them humanely yes, but they're invaluable for research.

 

[velo]

That’s a really fascinating point of view. It would seem you are saying that everyone who uses a product, or a derivative of a product, that was tested on animals is guilty of harming those animals even if that harm happened before they were born. That really is blaming the child for the sins of the father.

I don't think that's her point. I think she's saying its fine to say "oh don't test that cosmetic product on poor animals" if every ingrediant in that shampoo has already been proven safe for humans. BUT if there is a new ingrediant, not yet proven safe in humans, you need to test it on animals.

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong OP) that her point was even cosmetics need to be tested on animals--there's just no need to keep re-testing compounds that are proven to be safe.

 

[prana_md]

You need to understand, though, that your shampoo doesn't need to be tested on animals because every single one of the ingredients in the formulation has been tested on animals in the past and is "Generally Recognized As Safe" or has been approved for human exposure up to some concentration or whatever.

I had a feeling that this was the case ... I thought about it after I posted and figured that most of those "5-alpha-hydroxy-etc" ingredients had to be grandfathered in from past animal studies.

I guess I'm back to washing my hair with beer ... 😀 (I tested it on myself)

But is there really any new chemical technology when it comes to shampoo or cosmetics? If you read the bottle, it's all basically the same, from Pert to Herbal Essence (ooh, don't get me started on corporate appropriation of "all natural"!) to Bumble & Bumble. We could probably stay relatively clean and attractive without conducting a lot more non-medical animal testing.

I lived in England for a year, and they are way more insane about animal rights than here in the US (all of this is debated in the pub while chain-smoking, mind you) A lot of food for thought, and a smorgasbord of not-tested-on-animal products.

 

[zenman]

What about poor defenseless vegetables? No one gives them a second thought when they kill them. 🙁

 

[prana_md]

We went out of our way not to harm vegetables in England. Except for potatoes, which we deep-fried at every chance we got.

 

[dnw826]

What about poor defenseless vegetables? No one gives them a second thought when they kill them. 🙁

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants.
A. Whitney Brown

 

[EctopicFetus]

True Jain's dont eat some veggies because it involves killing the plant..

bottom line Peta is full of idiots with brains the size of peas. Same for the psycho's who burn houses for the environment..

 

[OSUdoc08]

I want to address this issue (or rant heheh)to people whom are most likely smarter than I 🙂 And also since your going to, hopefully, be using medical related instruments and chemicals that have been tried on animals that could have suffered in the process.

I did this outline real quick but it gets the point across. Grammar people pleaSE give me a break! 😡
Personal thinking outline

What is peta?

Peta stands for People for the Ethical treatment of animals. Almost self explanatory.

-It sounds like almost everyone would agree to their cause; however, they go about trying to enforce their “ways” by using lucrative tactics. An example, Peta had a daddy campaign that said something along the lines that daddy is a killer for going fishing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but kids are not going to test scientific studies on your beloved animals. This tactic reminds me of the tabacco industry that aims its furture to the young audiences. How? Oh come on, what about all the subtle advertisements that have “cool” people smoke. Another example would be its “scare tactics.” Lets show the public cruel animal beatings as say this is how a majority of farms are. I don’t believe it. There are most likely those farms that do beat their animals, but it is definitely a small portion. Who is to say the footage is real? How do we know it wasn’t set up to further PETA’s views on animal farms? Totally unthinkable? I think not.


Living coherently without killing animals?

- too many animals
-nueter millions and millions of dogs?
-put to sleep? obviously out of the question for peta
-put them in control groups? yeah... right
-an idea

Raised and grown with strict rules and care-- to eat
-animals will feel no pain
-animals will live a life of exercise and love
-animals will live a little bit past maturity before painlessly put down.
still bad to eat?
-Animal testing

-cosmetic testing, strict rules concerning safety and livelihood of animal(s) in its present and for future condition. Wrong? Would you rather put on make up that has yet to be tested on a living being? Would you rather a person (usually in great in of financial stability--i.e. the homeless, or yet to be homeless[not to turn this into a racial concern however, what racial culture do you think will be the majority test patients?.]) be the first tester?




medical reasons

how can you oppose this? ... were going to find the cure for cancer testing on human guinea pigs? Have you had a family member die to a disease that has yet a cure?
-<http://aidsresearcher.typepad.com>
-"Today, there are 37 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS. In the past 25 years, 20 million people have died from AIDS. By 2010, 44 million children will have been orphaned by the disease."
-"PeTA’s President Ingrid Newkirk once said even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, “we’d be against it.”"
-Would the testing on a few animals be considered inhumane to save millions of people who die from cancer and aids? Would it be inhumane if a humans were to test on themselves to save millions of animals?
-Okay, the people that are testing on your beloved animals are doctors/PHDs. They have had the most gruesome college experience (8+ years), they did not do it for fun. They, like people from the Peta organization, value "life." I'm sure if they could make the research more "humane" they would have done so, or already did. (I will explain more about this later)
-There are many Doctors/PHDs, trying their best to find a cure to save millions of people from dieing every year from aids. This case is especially true for Africans, as we, Americans, know fully well they are suffering the most from the devastation that is AIDS/HIV.
-Stopping animal testing will drammatically slow down aids/hiv research. How are you going to tell people that you want to slow down research for the cure to aids(and cancer)? The person that might also be your friends? Your neighbors? Or better yet your family? Or even worse the children who have contracted aids(AND CANCER!!) by unfateful ways?(maybe for the case of aids, rape/child molestation) No matter what you think about the situation, they are going to die early if a cure is not found. Go ahead and tell them you want elongate the time for a cure or finding that will help them live happier and healthier.


Websites that agree, or have people/commenters that do.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3735199.stm>

LABORATORY ISSUES

The forum administrator of www.PETA2.com, username “PETA2_ADMINISTRATOR” said and I quote,

“Unfortunately, government regulations have not kept pace with science. The federal government relies almost entirely on animal tests in setting human health policies, despite the availability of non-animal technologies such as human clinical and epidemiological studies, autopsy reports, cadaver-based experiments, and computer simulators, all of which are faster, more reliable, and more humane than animal tests. Human cell cultures and tissue studies, in vitro tests, and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the human body’s natural properties and provide scientists with less expensive alternatives to animal tests. In addition, a number of sophisticated computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts. To learn more, please visit http://www.StopAnimalTests.com.”

Many laboratories have clinics that tend to animals needs and living environment.

-"The animals which are tested on are bred for the purpose and kept in good conditions. The regulations surrounding keeping animals for scientific tests in the UK are some of the most comprehensive in the world. These regulations are defined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and include rules so places where animals are kept are inspected to ensure they are kept under certain conditions."

Animal testing "patients" are kept in the best conditions possible.

-"The tests which animals are subjected to are main as painless as possible. If a procedure is going to cause discomfort an animal is given painkillers. If a surgical procedure is taking place the animal is given anesthetic. As the animals spend most of their time in cages rather than being tested on the cages they are kept on are spacious and they animals are giving things to increase their happiness such as providing mice and other rodents with bedding material and tubs to crawl through, ensuring that dogs have contact with other dogs and with humans and that monkeys are provided with ropes and climbing frames. All of this means that the animals are kept in the nest conditions possible and they undergo the minimum of discomfort. Animals which are considered to be intelligent like chimpanzees and gorillas are banned from use in animal tests"

Yes, there are new technologies to help us further understand and aid in experimenting. However, do you truly believe that testing on non-living specimens will give an acceptable result? And by acceptable, I mean will computer tests be thorough enough to then after use on a human being?

“The federal government relies almost entirely on animal tests in setting human health policies, despite the availability of non-animal technologies such as human clinical and epidemiological studies, autopsy reports, cadaver-based experiments, and computer simulators, all of which are faster, more reliable, and more humane than animal tests. Human cell cultures and tissue studies, in vitro tests, and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the human body’s natural properties and provide scientists with less expensive alternatives to animal tests. In addition, a number of sophisticated computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts.”

The researchers are not making money by using animal testing as opposed to using new technology. What other intent do they have other than to help humanity! They don’t want to hurt animals!

“Animal testing is an expensive time consuming procedure which although results in drugs being produced which can create large amounts of profit for a pharmaceutical company the process itself isn't very profitable due the expense of keeping the animals in good conditions. Non animal methods are far cheap and if the tests were only carried out with an eye on profit it would be those which are used instead of animal tests.”


<http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Animal%20Testing.htm>


Organizations that benefit from animal testing!
-Do you support:
Honorary Spokesperson Neurofibromato is Association (U.K.)
American Liver Foundation
Canadian Liver Foundation
Lee National Denim Day
amFAR gala
Quilts of Inspiration
Breast Cancer Research Fund
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Neil Bogart Memorial Fund
Discovery Fund for Eye Research
Village Care of New York’s Network of AIDS Services
Cystic Fibrosis & Cancer charities
Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre(Austria)
Diabetes Research Institute
Multiple Sclerosis research
All of these organizations benefit tremendously from animal research.
<http://aidsresearcher.typepad.com>


RAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you guys think?

God made our canine teeth (cuspids) for a reason. To eat animals --> not to hug trees.

I've seen the PETA tree huggers driving around protesting keeping live mascots in a habitat at my school (undergrad.)

They obviously have never been to a zoo.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Meat = yummy...

 

[FDoRoML]

We went out of our way not to harm vegetables in England. Except for potatoes, which we deep-fried at every chance we got.

This is, no doubt, a purposeful slap in Ireland's face. The English are such a subtle people.

 

[jojocola]

i think i might eat some right now

 

[trustwomen]

Holy cow! (Pun intended) I did a quick google search and sampled some adoption rates from shelters. They're around 70-80%. Still, the Humane Society estimates that 3-4 million animals in shelters are euthanized every year. I guess PETA is just doing its part?

FYI I think those adoption rates mean "of the 10% (or fewer) of our received animals that actually make it to the "adoptable" category, 70-80% are adopted within the time frame we allow - after which they are euthanized".

Most animals that are picked up on the streets or dropped off by owners never make it to the adoption lists. They are deemed too old, too damaged and/or too unfriendly. I personally believe that we should get our pets only from shelters until there are no more animals in shelters; dog and cat "purebreeding" is greatly responsible for this problem of pet overpopulation and should not be encouraged. But I like to watch the dog shows on TV so I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as we all are (I'd never buy from a breeder though).

I believe that we should eliminate animal misery wherever possible. This might mean altering some of the standards of animal care in research, but as a whole I think the research community is MUCH more caring of their animals than the farm industry - the standards (to avoid cruelty/pain/distress) are certainly stricter. PETA is 100% correct about most of their claims regarding the meat, dairy and egg industries. I just wish they didn't have the undercurrent of "it's wrong to eat animals". I disagree with that fundamental claim, although I do find cruelty to animals horrific. I suspect I'm far from alone in being completely supportive of eliminating animal mistreatment (yes, even if the price of meat/milk/eggs quadruples as a result) but not supportive of forced vegetarianism.

 

[OSUdoc08]

FYI I think those adoption rates mean "of the 10% (or fewer) of our received animals that actually make it to the "adoptable" category, 70-80% are adopted within the time frame we allow - after which they are euthanized".

Most animals that are picked up on the streets or dropped off by owners never make it to the adoption lists. They are deemed too old, too damaged and/or too unfriendly. I personally believe that we should get our pets only from shelters until there are no more animals in shelters; dog and cat "purebreeding" is greatly responsible for this problem of pet overpopulation and should not be encouraged. But I like to watch the dog shows on TV so I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as we all are (I'd never buy from a breeder though).

I believe that we should eliminate animal misery wherever possible. This might mean altering some of the standards of animal care in research, but as a whole I think the research community is MUCH more caring of their animals than the farm industry - the standards (to avoid cruelty/pain/distress) are certainly stricter. PETA is 100% correct about most of their claims regarding the meat, dairy and egg industries. I just wish they didn't have the undercurrent of "it's wrong to eat animals". I disagree with that fundamental claim, although I do find cruelty to animals horrific. I suspect I'm far from alone in being completely supportive of eliminating animal mistreatment (yes, even if the price of meat/milk/eggs quadruples as a result) but not supportive of forced vegetarianism.

👎

 

[dnw826]

FYI I think those adoption rates mean "of the 10% (or fewer) of our received animals that actually make it to the "adoptable" category, 70-80% are adopted within the time frame we allow - after which they are euthanized".

Most animals that are picked up on the streets or dropped off by owners never make it to the adoption lists. They are deemed too old, too damaged and/or too unfriendly. I personally believe that we should get our pets only from shelters until there are no more animals in shelters; dog and cat "purebreeding" is greatly responsible for this problem of pet overpopulation and should not be encouraged. But I like to watch the dog shows on TV so I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as we all are (I'd never buy from a breeder though).

I believe that we should eliminate animal misery wherever possible. This might mean altering some of the standards of animal care in research, but as a whole I think the research community is MUCH more caring of their animals than the farm industry - the standards (to avoid cruelty/pain/distress) are certainly stricter. PETA is 100% correct about most of their claims regarding the meat, dairy and egg industries. I just wish they didn't have the undercurrent of "it's wrong to eat animals". I disagree with that fundamental claim, although I do find cruelty to animals horrific. I suspect I'm far from alone in being completely supportive of eliminating animal mistreatment (yes, even if the price of meat/milk/eggs quadruples as a result) but not supportive of forced vegetarianism.

👍 I don't think that vegetarianism is for everyone, it is personal choice. I would never force someone. But for me, it makes me ill.

 

[dnw826]

True Jain's dont eat some veggies because it involves killing the plant..

bottom line Peta is full of idiots with brains the size of peas. Same for the psycho's who burn houses for the environment..

Watch it, dude. I know some Peta members who are literally geniuses. No joke, they are some of the smartest people that I have ever met. And burning houses for the environment is stupid. We should just stick to a good ol' riot or protest. Maybe a usurping of the government.

 

[prana_md]

I believe that we should eliminate animal misery wherever possible. This might mean altering some of the standards of animal care in research, but as a whole I think the research community is MUCH more caring of their animals than the farm industry - the standards (to avoid cruelty/pain/distress) are certainly stricter. PETA is 100% correct about most of their claims regarding the meat, dairy and egg industries. I just wish they didn't have the undercurrent of "it's wrong to eat animals". I disagree with that fundamental claim, although I do find cruelty to animals horrific. I suspect I'm far from alone in being completely supportive of eliminating animal mistreatment (yes, even if the price of meat/milk/eggs quadruples as a result) but not supportive of forced vegetarianism.

My s.o. used to "sacrifice" rats in a cancer lab; it sounds like they were pretty serious about taking care of their animals.

As for vegetarianism, I have the luxury of living in the Bay Area, where I can get organic, free-range meat and dairy pretty easily. Otherwise, I completely agree that the meat and dairy industries are appalling. I think as a society, we could eat a lot less meat and be fine nutritionally.

I've always believed that the radical fringe (that doesn't harm people or animals or property) exists to stir up debate in the middle ... they're wacky, but they make us think.

 

[DrThom]

I just want to let you know that I am in full support of PETA!!!









We are talking about People for the Eating of Tasty Animals, right?

 

[zenman]

I just want to let you know that I am in full support of PETA!!!









We are talking about People for the Eating of Tasty Animals, right?

👍

 

[EctopicFetus]

Watch it, dude. I know some Peta members who are literally geniuses. No joke, they are some of the smartest people that I have ever met. And burning houses for the environment is stupid. We should just stick to a good ol' riot or protest. Maybe a usurping of the government.

Just because they are "literally geniuses" only means they have a high IQ that says nothing of their social ignorance or their lack of common sense.

Riot protest do whatever you want. I want my surf and turf and ill be damned if some hippy is gonna take that away from me!

 

[pmtdenna]

Just because they are "literally geniuses" only means they have a high IQ that says nothing of their social ignorance or their lack of common sense.

Riot protest do whatever you want. I want my surf and turf and ill be damned if some hippy is gonna take that away from me!

Amen!

 

[exmike]

I just want to let you know that I am in full support of PETA!!!









We are talking about People for the Eating of Tasty Animals, right?

heck yeah! mmmmmmm prime rib baby! Kobe beef!

 

[Buckeye(OH)]

I think it's reasonable to be bothered by animal research and want it conducted in as humane a way possible, but still understand its necessity.

For people who work or have worked in an animal lab, are there rules governing how you treat lab animals?

I work for the company that does the majority of pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing for the government as well as the commercial sector.

Our LAR takes the treatment of animals VERY SERIOUSLY. In fact, its so serious here, that something as stupid as flicking a mouse in the face can get you fired.

I ran a study last summer that without getting into details was rather harsh. We lost some 54 dogs. I can attest to the fact that these animals were under full anesthesia and deep within the surgical plane. I know this because we check multiple times while operating/performing procedures and have them hooked up to monitoring devices, as if this was an actual human. The standards set in the industry are incredibly high and im proud that my company takes these issues so seriously. I can't speak for the industry as a whole. Most labs are pretty good, because the FDA comes around fairly frequently and audits your every move.

I don't get how some of you can be against animal testing. Are you serious? Have you ever taken an advil? If you haven't fine. If you have, you better quit since its contributing to the use of animals in labs.

Take this example, VIOXX obviously caused a lot of problems, hence it being pulled off the market. Imagine if that compound had not been tested on animals first for dose-finding and efficacy. Im sure we would have had a lot more dead humans. Which would you prefer, dead humans, or dead canines?

 

[dnw826]

Just because they are "literally geniuses" only means they have a high IQ that says nothing of their social ignorance or their lack of common sense.

Riot protest do whatever you want. I want my surf and turf and ill be damned if some hippy is gonna take that away from me!

I have plenty of common sense and I would like you to prove otherwise before making general assumptions about an entire group of people. Just as I would never say that I hate all Republicans b/c Anne Coulter is a dangerous nimrod.

 

[dnw826]

I work for the company that does the majority of pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing for the government as well as the commercial sector.

Our LAR takes the treatment of animals VERY SERIOUSLY. In fact, its so serious here, that something as stupid as flicking a mouse in the face can get you fired.

I ran a study last summer that without getting into details was rather harsh. We lost some 54 dogs. I can attest to the fact that these animals were under full anesthesia and deep within the surgical plane. I know this because we check multiple times while operating/performing procedures and have them hooked up to monitoring devices, as if this was an actual human. The standards set in the industry are incredibly high and im proud that my company takes these issues so seriously. I can't speak for the industry as a whole. Most labs are pretty good, because the FDA comes around fairly frequently and audits your every move.

I don't get how some of you can be against animal testing. Are you serious? Have you ever taken an advil? If you haven't fine. If you have, you better quit since its contributing to the use of animals in labs.

Take this example, VIOXX obviously caused a lot of problems, hence it being pulled off the market. Imagine if that compound had not been tested on animals first for dose-finding and efficacy. Im sure we would have had a lot more dead humans. Which would you prefer, dead humans, or dead canines?

My dh did animal testing and I can tell you that both he and I are against unnecessary animal testing. I think that someone posted information earlier about the alternatives to animal testing, so why don't we just take more steps in that direction? I don't think that any lives should be taken unnecessarily.

 

[Buckeye(OH)]

My dh did animal testing and I can tell you that both he and I are against unnecessary animal testing. I think that someone posted information earlier about the alternatives to animal testing, so why don't we just take more steps in that direction? I don't think that any lives should be taken unnecessarily.

Why? Cost. We have extremely well characterized animal models that give us data repeatable anywhere throughout the world.

It will take millions of dollars, if not more, to develop other systems, no matter how simplistic they may seem. With an increase in cost comes things, 1) a likely increase in taxes and 2) an increase in time from desktop to pharmacy.

It already takes 12 years to get a drug on the market, in my opinion and in the majority of the individuals in this industry, Id venture to say developing a new system to save the lives of animals, is not worth tacking on another 5-10 years.

And you know what, what other possible alternative method could there be to test in a live being (some of this stuff HAS to be live and some of this stuff HAS to be in vivo)?

 

[pmtdenna]

My dh did animal testing and I can tell you that both he and I are against unnecessary animal testing. I think that someone posted information earlier about the alternatives to animal testing, so why don't we just take more steps in that direction? I don't think that any lives should be taken unnecessarily.

So does this mean you are for necessary testing?

 

[EctopicFetus]

I have plenty of common sense and I would like you to prove otherwise before making general assumptions about an entire group of people. Just as I would never say that I hate all Republicans b/c Anne Coulter is a dangerous nimrod.

Honestly a little reading comprehension is required. I never said anything about your common sense. I am simply saying that the nutty PETA people are idiots. Say what you will about republicans or dems it doesnt matter to me.

I made no mention of you just that you pointed out that some of the PETA folks are "literally geniuses" and all I am saying is that doesnt add much to their credibility as it says nothing of their lack of common sense etc..

 

[EctopicFetus]

I want some steak.... maybe tonite for dinner..😀

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I want some steak.... maybe tonite for dinner..😀

Only dinner? You lightweight. Steak and eggs for breakfast, steak sandwich for lunch, steak for dinner. I call it the Coronary Diet.

 

[dnw826]

So does this mean you are for necessary testing?

I believe that right now there is nothing we can do to stop what is considered necessary testing until our technology meets with our consciences. I try to avoid anything that I know is tested on animals, but noone is perfect. It's at least doing something by trying to reduce the amount of things that I use and buy that are tested on animals or support animal cruelty and death. Even one less death or life of misery is a step in the right direction.

 

[EctopicFetus]

That does sound appealing but it is a little too selective. You should try to eat a balanced diet which needs to include chicken, beef, fish, pork and if you are really into it some "delicacies" like rabbit, caviar, ostrich, buffalo, snails, frog legs, oysters, shrimp, and of course the all time Peta Fav live lobster..

BTW I have been really focused on the shellfish lately.. mostly crab legs and some lobster.. i did have some ground beef yesterday for breakfast...

Tonite I think it is beer can chicken!!! Yummy animals..

Damn it feels good to be at the top of the food chain!

 

[EctopicFetus]

I assume Peta folks dont wear leather shoes.. should make for a good time in the hospitals..