General Chat

Sue,
who are you referring to?

Berona; I thought I made myself clear when I said that there are other options,thats what I meant by less.
Less Animal experiments not less experiments!

I don't understand why anybody would think that experiments on animals were 'no longer needed'. Just look at the numbers of new drugs that have come to be in the last 20 years - how else are they to be tested? Yes, ultimately the only 'real' test is on humans, but there is a huge programme of trials before that stage is reached. I don't think anyone likes the idea of animal experiments, but it's a price we have to pay. Experiments in this country are at least (or should be) tightly regulated, unlike some other countries.

There are some experiments that will always need animals,I can accept that,I dont like it but I can accept it,but there is also alot of unnecessary suffering for some animals too.

and Yes,I would take a drug that had been tested, but it is about time that other options came into play, surely there are people out there with the brains to be able to do it!!


You can be a realist and also care!!thats the difference!

Just some sites for any humans who want to give it a try :-

www.areyoutheanswer.com

• Immune system regulation by controlled parasite exposure in multiple sclerosis (WIRMS-1)

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/trials/trials/selectsearch.asp

If the testing is regulated properly for some its the only option,I don't condone it,however,I fully understand the necessity.The numbers are worrying though.

I can accept some testing of drugs on animals. Mice are specially bred for the testing of some cancer drugs. They are bred to have a lowered resistance to illness and then injected with cancer, given drugs and then humanely "put to sleep". I can accept that because it has saved many lives. What I can't go for is experimenting on prisoners. Are you really proposing compulsory testing on criminals, Keith or is it just people who you think deserve this. Who would decide? Under what criteria?

Sue

I am referring to anyone who states they are against animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry but will take OTC meds at the drop of a hat.

BTW if you want to really get yourselves really upset just research how modern day vaccines were developed. My son had to have jabs 6 years ago against Japanese Encephalitis, his vaccine was produced using mouse brain. Was it a moral dilemma? No it wasn't.

Why would I be upset,I know too much about animal experiments, Ive read most of it,thanks!!

You seem to think Im a nutty Animal rights Activist,actually Im not,but I hate the fact that we have the Knowledge but wont use it because of cost,now thats disgusting!
All life is special,so if we can save an animal through spending a bit more,then we should!

There ARE alternatives to animals - just google 'alternatives to animal experiments' but, for various reasons, these aren't always the answer. I'm sure that scientists will continue to develop new technologies and perhaps, at some future point, there will be no need to use live animals.

Roxanne don't think for one minute anyone unless they're sick would approve of this form of research if other options were made freely available.
I was recently discussing with a friend.......why when people are terminally ill don't researchers ask if they can do trials on them?Its not like it could make things worse & in some cases may help-just a thought.

Actually I always feel you have a sensible and well thought out approach to animal welfare Roxy. You balance it with common sense and I respect that.

Sue xx

Oh let's all run a contemporary Salk trial then and then determine the efficacy of a drug judged by how many people develop further symptoms or die.

I give up!!!!!!

I don't like testing on animals but I accept it totally and not all life is special.

You have a sick dog and a sick child and one dose of a life saving drug which would save either. I know which patient I would administer the drug to.

Eeyore I can only talk about Australia and the research that is done here for cancer. There are constant clinical trials involving people who have exhausted all other treatment and are prepared to "give it a go". These people know that these treatments won't cure them but will help the doctors work out dosages and side-effects such as nausea and how to treat these side-affects or get rid of them. The people who are involved in clinical trials are selfless in that they are looking to people who are unfortunate enough to have cancer in the future.

Sue xx

Suemaid-common sense isnt it-If I find myself in that postion I'd be more than happy to be used for research.
Here it's the funding........money,money,money :(

Just because I respect Roxanne's point of view doesn't mean I can't accept yours, SueM. Truly this is a really emotive subject and people are bound to get hot under the collar when discussing the pros and cons of animal experiments. I fully accept animal experiments to further medical research but am totally against it for cosmetic reasons.

Sue x

Errr they use a book called the BNF for dosages,not Budgies !

Eeyore, funding is a problem here too. I work for a group who raise a great deal of money for research and yes we have financed the buying of little mice to be used as I said in an earlier post. Clinical trials are not a new thing but ongoing funding will always be a problem.

Sue xx

Basically its survival of the fittest & we're the Uber Species & abuse our position & no rabbits shouldnt wear lipstick-but who buys it ????

Sylvia Today at 11:42 Request review
Testing on child killers ? What utter drivel ... clearly a throw away remark not even thought out ...

why is it.i cant think of a better way.and as for drivel .its my drivel my opinion.just because its not come out of your mouth does,nt mean its drivel.

I stand by my earlier conviction that testing drugson animals to save human life is necessary. However I also agree with those who say that testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is not justified.

Just come in so have only read first page so far..but re medical experiments using prisoners, it used to be the case in America that 'lifers' could volunteer to test drugs as a way of them 'paying their debt to society'... emphasis on the word 'volunteer' of course.

Testing on animals for cosmetics, shampoo , cleaners etc is totally un-necessary... and that is what I buy, those which are BUAV approved ( they have a rabbit logo on) .

medical research is inevitably a grey area for most of us, in my case because I assume the dopamine tablets my mother took were tested on animals.... but regardless of the ethical dilemma on that score, it is essential that testing is humane... and I would put money on that not being the case in a large percentage of experiments. I think that the drugs companies have a responsibility to make their dealings open to the most stringent scrutiny.

Would I pay more for any drugs I needed to ensure that? yes I would.