Guinea Pigs, Animals and Medical Research
Discussion
Apologies if the topic has been done.
Fanatical animalist criminals have finally managed to terrorize, after years of disgusting abuse, a family into closing down their legitimate, valuable guinea-pig breeding farm. :( :(
What's the PH community's views on this? Personally, I believe that if the animalists put animal life above human life as they seem to, then an ideal solution would be for them to take the animals' place in the testing labs. :yes:
Plus, don't these idiots know that for every guinea pig bred in the UK for research, about a million are bred in the Andes for human consumption. I can confirm that Guinea Pig on a stick is delicious, like very tender pork. :yum: I would like to see a bunch of animalists try to inform a Peruvian of the error of his ancestral ways. Idiots.
Fanatical animalist criminals have finally managed to terrorize, after years of disgusting abuse, a family into closing down their legitimate, valuable guinea-pig breeding farm. :( :(
What's the PH community's views on this? Personally, I believe that if the animalists put animal life above human life as they seem to, then an ideal solution would be for them to take the animals' place in the testing labs. :yes:
Plus, don't these idiots know that for every guinea pig bred in the UK for research, about a million are bred in the Andes for human consumption. I can confirm that Guinea Pig on a stick is delicious, like very tender pork. :yum: I would like to see a bunch of animalists try to inform a Peruvian of the error of his ancestral ways. Idiots.
in the past when animal rights protesters have started protesting outside the testing facilities they have been offered the chance to be used for testing instead of the animals. i can just imagine the look of shock on their faces!
oh yeah, my opinion:
altho some (but most definitely not all!) animal testing is not carried out in the best ways, i think it is veryn beneficial. wihtout animal testing we would not be anywhere near as advanced as we are in medical fields.
chris
oh yeah, my opinion:
altho some (but most definitely not all!) animal testing is not carried out in the best ways, i think it is veryn beneficial. wihtout animal testing we would not be anywhere near as advanced as we are in medical fields.
chris
I think their point is that the animals are tortured and suffer which as far as i know won't happen when you've been killed, barbecued and then eaten 
We have 3 choices really, test on animals, test on humans or don't test at all.
I personally don't have a problem with animal testing if it is for important medical research.
I wonder if these animal rights fanatics will skip on pain killers when they are dying a painfull death at the end of their lives, after all they were tested on animals in the first place.
>> Edited by scorp on Thursday 25th August 09:31
We have 3 choices really, test on animals, test on humans or don't test at all.
I personally don't have a problem with animal testing if it is for important medical research.
I wonder if these animal rights fanatics will skip on pain killers when they are dying a painfull death at the end of their lives, after all they were tested on animals in the first place.
>> Edited by scorp on Thursday 25th August 09:31
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=202664
The above thread mainly about the "Terrorist" view of "Animal Rights Activists".
There is another conversation worth having, too. Which is about when it is acceptable to test drugs and products and when it is not.
Personally I will not buy non-essential products that have been tested on animals. Pretty easy if you're a bloke - harder if you are a woman and like make-up - but still possible.
Drugs that save lives or improve lives through better health, however, I take the view that they are essential.
Viagra, for example, I don't view as essential - no idea if it was ever tested on animals or not - I'm only using it as an example.
Its a difficult moral question with lots of grey areas as to where one draws the line.
Its also interesting to note that even "non-extremists" find the idea of "fluffy" animals being used much harder to take than "nasty" ones - where, in fact, there is no difference.
Bit like vegetarians who eat fish. Got news for you! You're not
vegetarian! etc etc
The above thread mainly about the "Terrorist" view of "Animal Rights Activists".
There is another conversation worth having, too. Which is about when it is acceptable to test drugs and products and when it is not.
Personally I will not buy non-essential products that have been tested on animals. Pretty easy if you're a bloke - harder if you are a woman and like make-up - but still possible.
Drugs that save lives or improve lives through better health, however, I take the view that they are essential.
Viagra, for example, I don't view as essential - no idea if it was ever tested on animals or not - I'm only using it as an example.
Its a difficult moral question with lots of grey areas as to where one draws the line.
Its also interesting to note that even "non-extremists" find the idea of "fluffy" animals being used much harder to take than "nasty" ones - where, in fact, there is no difference.
Bit like vegetarians who eat fish. Got news for you! You're not
vegetarian! etc etcI am kind of torn between it - guinea pigs have given many many many valuable advances to medical science yet I think they are fantastic creatures as pets.
Harmless, gormless and they make weeping noises
Excellent companion.
I do not agree with this family being terrorised for what they do. Extremeists of any kind are a bad bad thing.
Gh0st
The Weep Weep of Tranquillity
Harmless, gormless and they make weeping noises
Excellent companion. I do not agree with this family being terrorised for what they do. Extremeists of any kind are a bad bad thing.
Gh0st
The Weep Weep of Tranquillity
As a vegetarian (yes I know, don't shoot) and someone that likes to think they care about animal rights (although I am a pragmatist when it come to medical testing) this case makes me absolutely sick. These people give moderates a bad name in the same way Bin Laden does for most Muslims.
dieseljohn said:
As a vegetarian (yes I know, don't shoot)
Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. I can respect that - using market forces and all that.
Its the buggers who bang on about cruelty to fluffy wildlife who then happily munch on a steak and believe meat comes in clingfilm from Sainsbury's I can't respect. If they believe that everything they buy in the stores is "Freedom Food" they're in La La land.
This subject makes me VERY angry. So excuse disjointed posting.
I think that true medical research is fine** BUT I am fed up with the pointless research that is used for example cosmetic or something that is used as a whim for trialing a new idea.
I read a classic bit of testing the other day, femail dogs were given a urinal disfuction.
The tests were that the animals were given new tracts by using a plastic insert. 3 died of infection. 2 were OK and 4 died during the operation but were removed from the statistics as they did not live, stupid or what.
Viagra is a classic example it was originally used for a heart drug (failed) but they found that the spaniels they were using it sustained erections as a side effect so crap heart drug repacked as a sex boost.
Most drug testing is used as a means to prove in a court of law that drug (A) did not produce problem (B).
Just think of all the years of tobacco testing and now of course the classic rat in microwave for testing mobile phone radiation.
As for other drugs how many times have you taken a perscription and it has done nothing? gone back to a doctor and had something else perscribed. Well that was worth years of testing was it?
Most of the animal rights supporters are NOT terrorists same as the people campaining against the war are NOT terrorists if that is the case then anyone protesting against anything is a terrorist (closing a school -
terrorist).
Like most people they have a balanced view it is just the pointless over and over testing that puts peoples backs up. for example drugs tested by the FDA then comes over and retested? - why?
The govenment of course is pointing towards more testing because as you know they are the onces that bailed out HLS. hence they have a vested intrest in their money.
Oh and before you say I DO EAT MEAT! I am just sick of the pointless "research" and I do NOT put the life of a rat above a child before you bore us all with that old one.
I just think leaving any living animal in writhing pain is wrong just to prove if silly little Johnny drinks paint stripper he may survive.
Now genetic testing is the in thing mainly to get a good financial return of the investment, do you think if someone found a cure for cancer they would GIVE it to the world? - err, no. Sell at very high profit that is what it all boils down to.
**read this bit again before you flame me.
I think that true medical research is fine** BUT I am fed up with the pointless research that is used for example cosmetic or something that is used as a whim for trialing a new idea.
I read a classic bit of testing the other day, femail dogs were given a urinal disfuction.
The tests were that the animals were given new tracts by using a plastic insert. 3 died of infection. 2 were OK and 4 died during the operation but were removed from the statistics as they did not live, stupid or what.
Viagra is a classic example it was originally used for a heart drug (failed) but they found that the spaniels they were using it sustained erections as a side effect so crap heart drug repacked as a sex boost.
Most drug testing is used as a means to prove in a court of law that drug (A) did not produce problem (B).
Just think of all the years of tobacco testing and now of course the classic rat in microwave for testing mobile phone radiation.
As for other drugs how many times have you taken a perscription and it has done nothing? gone back to a doctor and had something else perscribed. Well that was worth years of testing was it?
Most of the animal rights supporters are NOT terrorists same as the people campaining against the war are NOT terrorists if that is the case then anyone protesting against anything is a terrorist (closing a school -
terrorist).
Like most people they have a balanced view it is just the pointless over and over testing that puts peoples backs up. for example drugs tested by the FDA then comes over and retested? - why?
The govenment of course is pointing towards more testing because as you know they are the onces that bailed out HLS. hence they have a vested intrest in their money.
Oh and before you say I DO EAT MEAT! I am just sick of the pointless "research" and I do NOT put the life of a rat above a child before you bore us all with that old one.
I just think leaving any living animal in writhing pain is wrong just to prove if silly little Johnny drinks paint stripper he may survive.
Now genetic testing is the in thing mainly to get a good financial return of the investment, do you think if someone found a cure for cancer they would GIVE it to the world? - err, no. Sell at very high profit that is what it all boils down to.
**read this bit again before you flame me.
scared but happy said:
This subject makes me VERY angry. So excuse disjointed posting.
Interesting. I'm going to give you a good flaming now - but I'm pretty sure you have a genuine desire to see the right thing done and I respect that - so I'm not going to too horrid.
Be very wary of emotional responses to difficult questions - they usually ignore every last subtlety in the argument. Quash emotions. Argue with yourself rationally, trying to see things from a range of points of view - then decide where you stand. Invariably when I react emotionally to an issue I change my mind on reflection.
scared but happy said:
I think that true medical research is fine** BUT I am fed up with the pointless research that is used for example cosmetic or something that is used as a whim for trialing a new idea.
How do you know what is pointless and what is not? Do you think scientists do anything expensive and difficult on a whim? I don't. That would paint them out as sadists. What evidence do you have that any of them are sadists? Or that the work they are doing is pointless? Sure - I agree with your point about cosmetics - they are unnecessary and are pretty easy to identify as something one would not want tested on animals. But there's a lot of products that are in greyer areas than that...do you seriously believe that decent, professional people would want to expose animals to potentially dangerous and painful tests unless there was a very good reason?
scared but happy said:
I just think leaving any living animal in writhing pain is wrong just to prove if silly little Johnny drinks paint stripper he may survive.
OK. But what about ingredients in paint that may, in the longer term, be cancer inducing? What if we painted public buildings (like hospitals, children's homes) with a product we thought was OK but then led to thousands of deaths? Both of us just made up these examples - I made the point earlier: why would a Company or scientist working for a Company want to subject expensive animals to unnecessary pain unless there was a really good reason? AFter all - we already know paint stripper is bad for you if ingested. It might be damn important to know, though, if walls stripped with it are then highly unsafe to touch for decades or if they're OK in minutes. I've no idea if one needs animals to determine that - but if one did and the risks to human life were great - then wouldn't test be necessary?
scared but happy said:
Now genetic testing is the in thing mainly to get a good financial return of the investment, do you think if someone found a cure for cancer they would GIVE it to the world? - err, no. Sell at very high profit that is what it all boils down to.
Glaxo et al are businesses. Because the have a profit motive they develop new drugs to make money. This profit motive has been the cataylst in the production of a vast array of highly beneficial medications that improve human life enormously.
Sure - it would be great if there were non-profit making altruistic organisations creating new drugs and giving them away - (there are charities) but they need funding too, somehow....
scared but happy said:
**read this bit again before you flame me.
I hope I haven't been too nasty. But I think you need to think about this some more. This area is complex...
scared but happy said:
Most of the animal rights supporters are NOT terrorists.
Undoubtedly. But some are.
We are already talking about deporting outspoken Imams. I wonder if we should consider locking up others who condone direct action - whatever the issue?
I wonder why its been possible for the AR terrorists to get away with what they've done to the farm in question? Clearly our cops have not taken their campaign as seriously as 7/7 - despite, in principle, it being exactly the same.
I think that SBH may be a little bit more towards the ‘anti’ camp than I am but have to agree with a lot of what he says.
Testing on animals is not ‘nice’ but it is, imo, justifiable in many cases, certainly where it is in respect of new medicines. Equally though, and I am happy to be corrected here, I would expect that the standards required for drugs to be licensed in the States are just as high as ours and so I can’t see why we shouldn’t have some sort of mutual agreement that if a drug is considered safe by them it should be so by us, therefore eliminating the need for further testing.
I had written a bit more about the ingestion issue but have amended it as a result of Don’s 11.14 post – You have a point about the after effects of, say paint stripper or paint. Thank you for helping to realign my views and reminding me to look at the issue a little more dis-passionately.
Testing on animals is not ‘nice’ but it is, imo, justifiable in many cases, certainly where it is in respect of new medicines. Equally though, and I am happy to be corrected here, I would expect that the standards required for drugs to be licensed in the States are just as high as ours and so I can’t see why we shouldn’t have some sort of mutual agreement that if a drug is considered safe by them it should be so by us, therefore eliminating the need for further testing.
I had written a bit more about the ingestion issue but have amended it as a result of Don’s 11.14 post – You have a point about the after effects of, say paint stripper or paint. Thank you for helping to realign my views and reminding me to look at the issue a little more dis-passionately.
I must go for testing on animals for medical research - despite much protestation there really is no vialble alternative short of testing on people.
The point about trying to avoid repeating testing across national boundaries is well made, but the competitive nature of the drugs industry rather puts the down on that - I suspect it would require a major rejig of capitalism to achieve.
On the other hand, I am pretty anti using animals to test cosmetics - making animals suffer for the benefit of vanity seems a step too far.
One point I always try to make to people who are into "animal rights" is that, sadly, mankind is the dominant species, you don't get to be the dominant species by being nice, and until people manage to progress to treating each other well (still sometime off I fear) animals are pretty much stuffed.
Prof Beard
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Thursday 25th August 12:35
The point about trying to avoid repeating testing across national boundaries is well made, but the competitive nature of the drugs industry rather puts the down on that - I suspect it would require a major rejig of capitalism to achieve.
On the other hand, I am pretty anti using animals to test cosmetics - making animals suffer for the benefit of vanity seems a step too far.
One point I always try to make to people who are into "animal rights" is that, sadly, mankind is the dominant species, you don't get to be the dominant species by being nice, and until people manage to progress to treating each other well (still sometime off I fear) animals are pretty much stuffed.
Prof Beard
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Thursday 25th August 12:35
Animal rights activists seem to have no regard to human rights.
Unwashed scumbags,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4210064.stm
Unwashed scumbags,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4210064.stm
Gasblaster said:
Personally, I believe that if the animalists put animal life above human life as they seem to
I don't think that they put animal life above human life, they probably class it as equal.
It's a bit arrogant of the human kind to expect every other animal to die to facilitate our vanities.
Whether it's right or wrong has to do with your viewpoint on whether you believe humans are more important than animals, which I myself believe we're not.
Gasblaster said:
Apologies if the topic has been done.
Fanatical animalist criminals have finally managed to terrorize, after years of disgusting abuse, a family into closing down their legitimate, valuable guinea-pig breeding farm.
What's the PH community's views on this? Personally, I believe that if the animalists put animal life above human life as they seem to, then an ideal solution would be for them to take the animals' place in the testing labs.
Plus, don't these idiots know that for every guinea pig bred in the UK for research, about a million are bred in the Andes for human consumption. I can confirm that Guinea Pig on a stick is delicious, like very tender pork.I would like to see a bunch of animalists try to inform a Peruvian of the error of his ancestral ways. Idiots.
These ALF terrorists even dug up the grave of an old lady they should be looked away and experimented on as they oppose the forward march of society through science.
ALF is as far as I am aware a proscribed organisation
People who are against animal testing for medical purposes should carry a card like a donor card to advertise their stance.
They should be denied any treatment, any element of which was developed with the aid of animal testing. That would mean no antobiotics, no blood transfusions and many surgical procedures being withheld from them. I wonder how many would recant their antipathy to animal testing faced with the prospect of dying when an animal-tested procedure would almost certainly save them?
They should be denied any treatment, any element of which was developed with the aid of animal testing. That would mean no antobiotics, no blood transfusions and many surgical procedures being withheld from them. I wonder how many would recant their antipathy to animal testing faced with the prospect of dying when an animal-tested procedure would almost certainly save them?
I work in a University cell biology research lab and speaking from the scientists point of view, using animals is an absolute last resort. They are expensive, difficult to keep and don't always provide data that is directly relevant, however using animals for both medical research and primary scientific research is unavoidable. Next month I am starting a new contract working in a neurology department doing research into motor neuron disease (specifically ALS) and I will be using a zebra fish and mouse models as well as primary cell cultures. I would love it if we could invesitgate these questions using just cell cultures but the reality is that the aetiology of the disease effects the entire organism and therefore to look at the disease process requires animals that display the disease. Will this approach produce data that is applicable to human MND? We don't know, but we have to use every tool we have available.
The people who are opposed to animal testing have comfortable, long, healthy lives as a direct result of research using animals. The ingredients in any cosmetic or houshold product has, at some stage, been animal tested (even overpriced animal friendly gloop from the body shop). If you use any commercially available cosmetic or cleaning agent you indirectly consent to animal testing. It's the equivalent of driving to an anti-road protest......
The people who are opposed to animal testing have comfortable, long, healthy lives as a direct result of research using animals. The ingredients in any cosmetic or houshold product has, at some stage, been animal tested (even overpriced animal friendly gloop from the body shop). If you use any commercially available cosmetic or cleaning agent you indirectly consent to animal testing. It's the equivalent of driving to an anti-road protest......
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff