Animal Testing

Former Member

From what the stats says there doesn't seems to be a large amount of young people dying from cancer...



The researchs are not about curing deseases as most like pointed out in this thread will be too expensive to be used by the nhs or others, but they are about proudness of the humankind to fight against nature... those days dying at 50 is considered young, when 200 years ago you would have been lucky to even get to 50... The all humankind is driven by a fear of death... fear of what is natural... fear of life...

Former Member

minimi38 wrote:

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

Plenty do, more do that don't...

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

sorry about that...

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

sorry to hear about that

Why are you sorry to hear about people dying young of cancer? Surely they died of natural causes? Who needs cancer research, eh?

I can scarcely believe that you are writing off all medical research because you think there are enough cures in the world. Presumably what you mean is that there have been enough cures created so far to treat all the minor ailments you have suffered in your lives.

What if the bun in your oven was threatened by, for example, pre-eclampsia. Would you accept medical treatment or are there enough humans in the world already and is the NHS far too overburdened with Herceptin claims to pay for your treatment?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Why are you sorry to hear about people dying young of cancer? Surely they died of natural causes? Who needs cancer research, eh?

Having sympathy for people who lost someone close have nothing to do with the subject, it's just understanding human feelings.

Kentish wrote:

I can scarcely believe that you are writing off all medical research because you think there are enough cures in the world. Presumably what you mean is that there have been enough cures created so far to treat all the minor ailments you have suffered in your lives.

What if the bun in your oven was threatened by, for example, pre-eclampsia. Would you accept medical treatment or are there enough humans in the world already and is the NHS far too overburdened with Herceptin claims to pay for your treatment?

Talking of bun in the oven I have lost a baby last year myself and I still think what I think. It's was hard but that's what life is all about.

Former Member

i dont believe we shouldnt already use medical knowledge already gained, but as I said previously. There is so much medical treatment thats not even available to the vast vast majority of people. Its seen as too expensive, and the fact that millions of people already die worldwide for stuff thats easily curable with drugs that cost pennies, yet all this new research for drugs that noone can afford except the extremely affluent. I think its a waste of money and extremely unethical. Pandering to the rich who are too scared of their own mortality, while the poor have to just accept their lot.
The fact that millions of animals have to die for it all the time too just adds insult to injury.

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

i dont believe we shouldnt already use medical knowledge already gained, but as I said previously. There is so much medical treatment thats not even available to the vast vast majority of people. Its seen as too expensive, and the fact that millions of people already die worldwide for stuff thats easily curable with drugs that cost pennies, yet all this new research for drugs that noone can afford except the extremely affluent. I think its a waste of money and extremely unethical. Pandering to the rich who are too scared of their own mortality, while the poor have to just accept their lot.
The fact that millions of animals have to die for it all the time too just adds insult to injury.

Fine, by all means make a stand and decline all medication created after 21/4/06 and accept your lot when it comes. But don't whinge when the rest of us take the treatment offered.

If you want to help the poor, help them by all means, but that doesn't mean research has to stop. There still isn't a cure for AIDS let's not forget.

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

Having sympathy for people who lost someone close have nothing to do with the subject, it's just understanding human feelings.

But it's false sympathy if your argument is basically tough titties, we have an option to find a cure for that horrible ghastly disease but we shan't bother. It's only life after all.

Former Member

yeah but whats the point, when its only a tiny fraction of society that would benefit. Its poor value for money, poor value for the lives lost in the research (which I happen to think is an issue)

Its not false sympathy.
I can sympathise with people and still not offer them a solution. Thats not what its all about.
Everyone dies. Just because i cant stop everyone from dying doesnt mean I dont feel sorry for people who suffer a loss.

Former Member

its not a case of should we,imo.its a must that we continue with animal testing.diseases mutate don't they?
how else are we to continue research without testing on humans first?

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

yeah but whats the point, when its only a tiny fraction of society that would benefit. Its poor value for money, poor value for the lives lost in the research (which I happen to think is an issue)

That's fine if you're willing to stand up and put a price on life. Sadly the Great British Public think that life at any price is acceptable and will go to court to prove it. Would you deny Herceptin to women with breast cancer cos it's too expensive?

Its not false sympathy.
I can sympathise with people and still not offer them a solution. Thats not what its all about.
Everyone dies. Just because i cant stop everyone from dying doesnt mean I dont feel sorry for people who suffer a loss.

Of course it's false. You can't on the one hand genuinely feel sorry for someone's loss and then argue that we shouldn't be bothering to do research which could have prevented the loss in the first place. That's the very definition of duplicity, surely?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Why are you sorry to hear about people dying young of cancer? Surely they died of natural causes?

Er... because they died young?

Are we not to feel sorry about a 5 year old kid dying of leukemia either?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Er... because they died young?

Are we not to feel sorry about a 5 year old kid dying of leukemia either?

If you're saying that we shouldn't treat 5 year olds with leukaemia or develop future cures, of course you feeling "sorry" is meaningless.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

But it's false sympathy if your argument is basically tough titties, we have an option to find a cure for that horrible ghastly disease but we shan't bother. It's only life after all.

every sympathy is false unless it concern you directly imo... sympathy is useless... death of someone close is thought titties yes... but saying sorry is a way of saying i know how it feels... it's not saying I wish we could have saved them at all... death at any age is a part of life... people should accept it rather than trying to fight against it in vain... no matter what you do you will end up dead... if one day I found out I had such desease I will not as the world to kill millions to save me and not even sure I would take a treatment tbh... if I do take a treatment and try to survive it will be for my close ones and not for myself... because of feelings for others and not because of fear of death...

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

That's fine if you're willing to stand up and put a price on life. Sadly the Great British Public think that life at any price is acceptable and will go to court to prove it. Would you deny Herceptin to women with breast cancer cos it's too expensive?

Of course it's false. You can't on the one hand genuinely feel sorry for someone's loss and then argue that we shouldn't be bothering to do research which could have prevented the loss in the first place. That's the very definition of duplicity, surely?

You just dont get what im saying do you? Its not that I WANT to deny stuff to people, its that theyre getting denyed it ANYWAY. The treatment is barely available to any but a fraction. Its like saying give all this money so that we can research all this treatment, but only the royal family will benefit, the rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Yes its still good to have the knowledge (in a way) but whats the point if hardly anyone gets to use it anyway.
The research wouldnt actually even SAVE the lives of most of these people.

Former Member

millions of animals will be slaughtered today to cure your hunger ...your tastes ...your life style.
fucking barmy saying killing a few more for research purposes is wrong.
the weakness of the pampered modern western youth is showing ...animal life = human life ...utter bollox.

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

You just dont get what im saying do you? Its not that I WANT to deny stuff to people, its that theyre getting denyed it ANYWAY. The treatment is barely available to any but a fraction. Its like saying give all this money so that we can research all this treatment, but only the royal family will benefit, the rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Yes its still good to have the knowledge (in a way) but whats the point if hardly anyone gets to use it anyway.
The research wouldnt actually even SAVE the lives of most of these people.

What drugs are you talking about? I think you're being a bit misleading to suggest that the majority of new drugs are not made available to the general public.

And by the way, most drugs are only produced to improve quality of life rather than extend life itself to a limitless degree.

Are you in actual fact a Luddite?

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote:

You just dont get what im saying do you? Its not that I WANT to deny stuff to people, its that theyre getting denyed it ANYWAY. The treatment is barely available to any but a fraction. Its like saying give all this money so that we can research all this treatment, but only the royal family will benefit, the rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Yes its still good to have the knowledge (in a way) but whats the point if hardly anyone gets to use it anyway.
The research wouldnt actually even SAVE the lives of most of these people.

I see what you're saying - what's the point in spending money on researching cures when the NHS won't be able to provide the cures when/if they are found, because all the money will have been spent on researching them.

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

if I do take a treatment and try to survive it will be for my close ones and not for myself....

How noble of you. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Knee High Stripy Socks wrote:

I see what you're saying - what's the point in spending money on researching cures when the NHS won't be able to provide the cures when/if they are found, because all the money will have been spent on researching them.

Well that's a circular argument of course. Why not just shut down the NHS and call it a day. It's too expensive!

Former Member

i think half the problem is that the empire has been built ...the killing and fighting and dying has been done ...by others before you.
now ...nothing to do but complain about diddly shit.
the death of every great society ...

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

millions of animals will be slaughtered today to cure your hunger ...your tastes ...your life style.
fucking barmy saying killing a few more for research purposes is wrong.
the weakness of the pampered modern western youth is showing ...animal life = human life ...utter bollox.

fine, what do you think human life will be without any other living thinga on this planet? we will all be dead... eating for food is natural... testing animals but not testing humans is pathetic... as i said many time if research were so damn important humans testing should exist too... I am not for not killing anything I am for total equality... and yes we could eat humans too... i always wonder what it taste like tbh... and if one day I can taste human flesh i will...

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

fine, what do you think human life will be without any other living thinga on this planet? we will all be dead... eating for food is natural... testing animals but not testing humans is pathetic... as i said many time if research were so damn important humans testing should exist too... I am not for not killing anything I am for total equality... and yes we could eat humans too... i always wonder what it taste like tbh... and if one day I can taste human flesh i will...

we do test on humans ya plank!
you feel equalt to a rat and a slug thats fine by me.
who would you save ...the slug or your baby ...being french it would probably be the fucking slug.

Former Member

This is one of those weird topics that I'm very conflicted about. I appreciate the enormous leaps and bounds of progress it has given us but I do find it extremely hard to reconcile the death of an animal for the life of a human. It might be worth mentioning at this point that I'm one of those people who would never knowingly kill a fly/ant/worm or lay a mousetrap...anything like that.

I would most definitely defy anyone here to scratch the surface of the world of animal testing and not be utterly sickened and devastated by some of the depraved experiementation and - even worse - unnecessary experimentation that goes on. I'm sure most people on here wouldn't look into it in that kind of depth for exactly that reason. I do, however, know that there are also people who couldn't give two figs about the animals that are bred to die in the name of vivisection and that is what I cannot understand.

The majority of people can recognise the "necessary evil" of it while welcoming the advances it brings about; that's the viewpoint I can understand... even though it is not my own.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

we do test on humans ya plank!
you feel equalt to a rat and a slug thats fine by me.
who would you save ...the slug or your baby ...being french it would probably be the fucking slug.

that made me laugh out loud!

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

.. eating for food is natural... ...

well eat fucking greens then.
believe it or not ...for humans ...thinking and exploring/researching ...are natural.
do you live in a cave?

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

we do test on humans ya plank!
you feel equalt to a rat and a slug thats fine by me.
who would you save ...the slug or your baby ...being french it would probably be the fucking slug.

Not at early stages ya plank!
Choosing your own child or your partner over an other living creature as fucking nothing to do with it... If I could kill millions of animal to save the baby I lost last year I wouldn't... it's life... as I said it's not about saving animals, it's about equality... and as I said many many times if researchs are so damn important for you all why no one go sign a petition so we can test humans at early stages... but no that is no ethical cos there is risks... but we both know people could die but we could also found treatment that couldn't be found by testing animals only... I don't say don't taste animals, I say test animals and humans...

Former Member

The testing that's done on animals and the testing that's done (to a far lesser degree) on humans is incomparable. Voluntarily attending research trials (even if they do make your entire body swell up like a balloon) and being paid for your trouble is not the same as being bred to die in the name of clinical research.

However worthy you may personally believe that research is, the testing done on humans and animals is nothing of a likeness.

Former Member

nihilisticmadman wrote:

Not at early stages ya plank!
Choosing your own child or your partner over an other living creature as fucking nothing to do with it... If I could kill millions of animal to save the baby I lost last year I wouldn't... it's life... as I said it's not about saving animals, it's about equality... and as I said many many times if researchs are so damn important for you all why no one go sign a petition so we can test humans at early stages... but no that is no ethical cos there is risks... but we both know people could die but we could also found treatment that couldn't be found by testing animals only... I don't say don't taste animals, I say test animals and humans...

it is completely beyond me how you can give equal staus to animals and humans ...totaly beyond me.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

well eat fucking greens then.
believe it or not ...for humans ...thinking and exploring/researching ...are natural.
do you live in a cave?

Wahoo... so impress... you forgot the part were i said we could eat humans too and i would if given the oppotunity tho... and i will repeat myself again I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH ANIMALS TESTING I AM JUST SAYING WE SHOULD TEST HUMANS AT EARLY STAGES TOO... sorry for the capital, not pissed but people seems to always quote what I sa ad they can bitch about instead of the all thing... I argue about equality of life, not about killing animals... I am myself working for an R&D company so yeah i do know humans like to research that's my fucking job...

Former Member

NMM - do you eat meat?