Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Animal Testing

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Anyone who believes animal testing is a necessary evil and is fed up of animal rights activists digging up grannies having all the say- please have a look at this site:

http://www.peoplespetition.org.uk/

I think it's long overdue; yes animal testing is unpleasant but for now it's necessary and it's about time there was an outlet for the rational supporters to have a say. Apparently a lot of it is moving abroad due to pressure from animal rights groups, which I consider to be a bad thing as the animal welfare regulations in the UK, as far as I'm aware, are stricter than pretty much anywhere else.
«134567

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wish there was a website to go sign a petition to authorise human testing at early stages too...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't disagree with animal testing for medical reasons per se, however what I do disagree with is that drugs companies using animals are in competition with one another, so rather than using say, 30 rabbits to test a variation of a drug, each company uses 30 rabbits to test similar variations of the drug (that is how I understand it anyway). But unfortunately I guess that kind of collaboration is never going to happen. Do correct me if I am wrong on this as it isn't something I really know much about.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what bother me on the subject is that everyone is ready to do early testing on animals saying that it is needed for research, even tho sometimes it will work on animals but fucked up humans when released, but not a lot of people agree to do early stage testing on humans when some might work on humans whe not working on animals... if researchs are so damn important animals and humans should be tested at early stages... no matter the risks involved...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    what bother me on the subject is that everyone is ready to do early testing on animals saying that it is needed for research, even tho sometimes it will work on animals but fucked up humans when released, but not a lot of people agree to do early stage testing on humans when some might work on humans whe not working on animals... if researchs are so damn important animals and humans should be tested at early stages... no matter the risks involved...

    I don't know anyone who would agree to being in a drugs trail for a drug that hasn't even been tested on animals yet! It is not really feasible to have human testing in the early stages, to me there is a very significant difference between killing 30 rabbits and killing 30 people....

    There is probably no point in doing early drugs testing on people, the whole point is that animals have to be used to perfect the drug before it can be of any use to (or even safe to be used on) people, you can't go around causing death/permanent damage in people in the early stages of drug trails just for the sake of using humans. As I undestand it, the majority of (if not all) drugs are tested on humans before they are released, so as to at least avoid short term problems.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FireFly85 wrote:
    I don't know anyone who would agree to being in a drugs trail for a drug that hasn't even been tested on animals yet! It is not really feasible to have human testing in the early stages, to me there is a very significant difference between killing 30 rabbits and killing 30 people....

    Makes no difference to me... life is life and no life is greater than an other...
    FireFly85 wrote:
    There is probably no point in doing early drugs testing on people, the whole point is that animals have to be used to perfect the drug before it can be of any use to (or even safe to be used on) people, you can't go around causing death/permanent damage in people in the early stages of drug trails just for the sake of using humans. As I undestand it, the majority of (if not all) drugs are tested on humans before they are released, so as to at least avoid short term problems.

    There is point of doing early stages testing on human, human are not animals and so test that might not work on animals might work on humans which could help develop new drugs and treatment that could save a lots of humans... People who always say animals testing is needed always point out that it has to be done for research, but if they were that keen on doing everything possible to find out new drugs and treatment that would save millions they would agree with huma testing at early stages too...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Out of interest then, if a medical company approached you with this new drug that had never been tested on animals and said that they had done everything they believed they could to make it safe but there was still a significant chance that it would kill/permanently damage humans (which is what they need to test) would you take it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FireFly85 wrote:
    Out of interest then, if a medical company approached you with this new drug that had never been tested on animals and said that they had done everything they believed they could to make it safe but there was still a significant chance that it would kill/permanently damage humans (which is what they need to test) would you take it?

    No cos I don't care about research at all... What's the point with humans living longer... all they do is fucked everything up and we are already way too much on this planet... I don't think animals testing should exist either... but those who said researchs are so damn important, well they should offer themselves too... otherwise researchs are not that important to them...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think theres already enough drugs and cures.
    We have a life expectancy far higher than ever before. Most people die of natural causes. We dont need to be able to cure everything.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    I think theres already enough drugs and cures.
    We have a life expectancy far higher than ever before. Most people die of natural causes. We dont need to be able to cure everything.

    Agreed.

    And I'm against animal testing mainly because I think it's wrong (unless the product is actually going to be used on animals in the future) and besides, like it has already been mentioned, animals and humans will react differently.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    I think theres already enough drugs and cures.
    We have a life expectancy far higher than ever before. Most people die of natural causes. We dont need to be able to cure everything.
    What about cancer, parkinsons, degenerative nerve diseases, etc?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    What about cancer, parkinsons, degenerative nerve diseases, etc?

    Aren't all of those natural causes... aren't any virus or sickness natural causes anyway...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    what bother me on the subject is that everyone is ready to do early testing on animals saying that it is needed for research, even tho sometimes it will work on animals but fucked up humans when released, but not a lot of people agree to do early stage testing on humans when some might work on humans whe not working on animals... if researchs are so damn important animals and humans should be tested at early stages... no matter the risks involved...

    But a large chunk of animal testing in the early stages is to ascertain things like the LD50, surely it would be just a tiny be unethical to test the LD50 on human subjects?

    And, all medical testing isnt about pre-longing our lives out beyond the 100 mark, people die for no good reason in middle age or younger.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what about every single disease known to man.

    we could live FOREVER. oh joy, except half the time, they spend an absolute fortune researching cures, but then we cant afford the drugs, or the operation is too expensive.
    The MS drugs that wont be provided on the NHS.
    Why not put more money into being able to use the cures we already have, than developing new cures that only rich people will be able to use anyway and tbh, have no guarantee even for them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    what about every single disease known to man.

    we could live FOREVER. oh joy, except half the time, they spend an absolute fortune researching cures, but then we cant afford the drugs, or the operation is too expensive.
    The MS drugs that wont be provided on the NHS.
    Why not put more money into being able to use the cures we already have, than developing new cures that only rich people will be able to use anyway and tbh, have no guarantee even for them.
    I completely agree. There are 4 million children dying in Africa every year from curable diseases, many of which could be saved by medicine that only costs $1 (Source: Our Common Interest - Bob Geldof).

    I also agree with NihilisticMadman... A life is a life whatever creature it is and also note that animals are different to humans in some ways.

    It is all about pandering to human emotions and our survival gene. To sound cold and wicked, it is not benefitting the human race at all... To come back down to earth, we all adore our loved ones and wold do anything to save them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    I think theres already enough drugs and cures.
    We have a life expectancy far higher than ever before. Most people die of natural causes. We dont need to be able to cure everything.

    Interesting viewpoint.

    So basically if you are fortunate to contract a disease for which a cure already exists then you will get it, and we will save you life. If you contract something for which there is no cure, then you are stuffed and should die?

    Harsh.

    Especially when you consider the push for euthanasia in this country too.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    Aren't all of those natural causes... aren't any virus or sickness natural causes anyway...
    true enough, my point is that while I can take or leave a cure for asthma or hay fever, cures for the afore-mentioned diseases I think are still worth working toward.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    But a large chunk of animal testing in the early stages is to ascertain things like the LD50, surely it would be just a tiny be unethical to test the LD50 on human subjects?

    Why? A life is a life imo...
    bongbudda wrote:
    And, all medical testing isnt about pre-longing our lives out beyond the 100 mark, people die for no good reason in middle age or younger.

    I know it's not, but the amount of people dying for deseases we are doing research on is tiny and might just be natural selection... And as said before when some cure for such deseases are found they are too expensive to be used and the people they could saved die anyway...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    true enough, my point is that while I can take or leave a cure for asthma or hay fever, cures for the afore-mentioned diseases I think are still worth working toward.

    Well for cancer I think there is already quite a lot of treatment that do work... more than 4 people in familly got cancer at different stages and have been cured... also for all those desease what are the ages of the majority of people who got them... most of them are already old and ages ago they wouldn't even have live that old...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    Why? A life is a life imo...

    So I presume you are ethically against pest control?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    So I presume you are ethically against pest control?

    why would I not be against it... do you always have to kill what bother you? No you don't, it's just easier to do so...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    why would I not be against it... do you always have to kill what bother you? No you don't, it's just easier to do so...

    Where do you draw the line, flies? Worms? Germs? Viruses? A life is a life after all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    we need all of those things on the planet bongbudda.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Where do you draw the line, flies? Worms? Germs? Viruses? A life is a life after all.

    yes you are right everything is life, there is no lines to be drawn...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    Well for cancer I think there is already quite a lot of treatment that do work... more than 4 people in familly got cancer at different stages and have been cured... also for all those desease what are the ages of the majority of people who got them... most of them are already old and ages ago they wouldn't even have live that old...
    Three people in my family and 2 that I know got cancer, all but one died.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Three people in my family and 2 that I know got cancer, all but one died.

    sorry about that... what ages were they?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    yes you are right everything is life, there is no lines to be drawn...

    So for you, the use of soap when washing your hands is the same as mass murder.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Three people in my family and 2 that I know got cancer, all but one died.
    sorry to hear about that :(

    All the cancer research they do, all the animal testing, and still people die.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    So for you, the use of soap when washing your hands is the same as mass murder.

    Yep... also so you don't get me wrong I don't care about anything dying in any sort of way... my main point is that there is no life more important than an other and that if animals testing is ok so is human testing...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nihilisticmadman wrote:
    sorry about that... what ages were they?
    Not old enough. It's not really the point, the fact is that people still die young of diseases that can be cured with more research.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    I think theres already enough drugs and cures.
    We have a life expectancy far higher than ever before. Most people die of natural causes. We dont need to be able to cure everything.

    Other people may not share that view and would probably want to live after they get a serious disease or condition.
Sign In or Register to comment.