Personally, I would say no...regardless of medical nouns, but for it to happen for 'cosmetic purposes' is merely disgusting!
Answer:
No! Okay, maybe that's too simplistic an answer but I own good reason for saying no. The largest reason is the sickening hardship and cruelty face by animals for the lack of TRUE medical develoments. For example, chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal world are immune to AIDS and Hepatitis. This, for me, provides the clearest indication that comparing animal and human subjects is totally flawed as a irrefutable method. Drugs that have be passed due to animal testing hold then gone on to be trialed next to humans - those which showed to cure or improve strokes for monkeys have no effect or sometimes a worsening effect on human subjects.
I would recommend anyone concerned about this subject should call in the Dr Hadwen Trust's website at http://www.drhadwentrust.org and read about how they work on research methods to ensure that animals do not enjoy to be used or harmed in the nouns of medicine.
The discovery of the Genome is so significant to the nouns of medicine it could finally see an winding up to vivisection if, and only if, scientists are allowed to speak freely in the region of their objections to animal experimentation.
Please also see http://www.animalaid.org.uk and http://www.vegansociety.com to see how you can live a cruelty free lifestyle.
Thanks for raise this important topic.
If it will save humans, next yes, it is reasonable.
I also agree its disgusting.
better to tryout on animals than humans
would enjoy to agree with you on the cosmetic front but not on the medical front.
prickly subject i know but here go -
when you know someone who is dying and their only hope of treatment is something that have been tested on animals next you may change your mind.
when you own to watch someone you love slipping away because a much needed drug hasn't but finished trials due to upset on the testing of it on animals you may evolution your mind.
sorry if i offend anyone but this is a subject i surface strongly about, at hand are no winners.
You really, DON'T want to get me STARTED, on this subject, - so, I'll of late say, that I TOTALLY agree, beside you! Vivisection is BARBARIC!
I agree on the cosmetic arguement -
But when face with a potentially terminal disease, will you turn down treatment that has be tested on animals and die, rather than live to a ripe dated age?
I think i know the answer.
I fully agree, I make homemade cosmetics, hairspray, gel, shampoos, etc, so I cant see why its necessary to testing on animals at all. The cruelty that these little beings walk through for mankind is shocking.
To the individual who said chimps are our closest relative, I enjoy an FYI - We differ from chimps by 2% DNA. We differ from dolphins by only 1% DNA.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is doing adjectives they can to end animal trialling.
From Vivisection is Absurd . org
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen contained by animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal test and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal test are immediately discarded as useless or dicey to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the bazaar cause cancer contained by laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal test are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., cause tumours in mice. They said the animal theory test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are one and only 37% effective surrounded by identifying what cause cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost other used in cancer research. They never win carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factor such as diet and bedding. Bedding has be identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in one and the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond beside humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats contained by a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturer of the drug Surgam failed due to the nouns of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon liquid is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are undisruptive according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human ailment. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are cause by drugs which are passed as being sheltered in animal test, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defect are caused by drugs passed not detrimental in animal test, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post period of war levels.
(19) One contained by six patients in hospital are in that because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 death a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people be hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more probable to develop measles if they had be vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicine have be released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, one and only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of life illness are cause by medicines. All own been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies be delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments be relied upon...humanity would have be robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal test, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicine. They would have be banned if vivisection be heeded.
(28) In the court grip when the manufacturers of Thalidomide be being tried, they be acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal test could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions be delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite copious Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, solely 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist beside which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die contained by laboratories each second worldwide; within the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to shelter vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could enjoy been acheived minus animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
Well IF someone "volunteers" for such a procedure well next it would be OK, otherwise I do not think it woudl be OK to "force" such a procedure onto another.
It mode something like "the SLICING and experimentation associated next to operating on a liviing subject":~is that correct?
I'm gonna dance with "no" here... I don't focus some people who answered know what vivisection is.
Absolutely not. Read, "What will we do if we don't
test on Animals by Ray Greek". You'll find that the
information they arrive at by testing on animals cannot
be responsibly applied to human science.
This is why gene dream therapy is so important.
Also, they approaching to inject animals with diseases
and place extra y and x chromosomes within them
in charge to change their sex or their position.
How sick!
People and animals are not made one and the same way. Testing human medicine on animals is absolutely useless. Not to mention apathetic and disgusting.
No it isn't.
It is pointless whether it's for medicine or cosmetics.
Why? Because adjectives species-even those closely related like chimps-react surrounded by different ways.So a drug that is fine for a chimp may slay a human.The same applies for diseases.Chimps-our closest living relatives-are immune to 98% of illnesses that affect us.
So drug tests own to be done all over again on human volunteers.
Therefore what is the point?Makes as much sense as a vet trialling medicine for a dog on a cat.
PETA once said, 'if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we wouldn't support it'.
Rarely is anything said that make my blood boil as much as that does. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is a truly horrific disease, claiming millions of people every year, tons of them children, none of them deserving. I'm sure you all know the mount of the problem in Africa, as it's so very well publicised on TV.
PETA would condemn millions of innocent people, ethnic group no different to yourselves, to death for the sake of a far substandard number of animals. I don't dislike animals in the most minuscule, but I fail to comprehend how anyone can worth them over human lives.
Anyway, the animals tested upon are done so with as much fastidiousness as possible, there are law in place to ensure that, and they don't usually suffer or die as a result of the conducting tests. On the other hand, duration saving and anguish preventing drugs are provided by animal testing, that accumulate millions of people every year. If it come down to you or a family applicant, would you rather they died or used a drug that wouldn't own become available without animal trialling to save their energy? Even the famed Linda McCartney used drugs tested on animals when push came to shove.
The certainty is animal testing is entirely critical. It may not be perfect, and we may not be close ample to animals for it to give a completely accurate result, but it's better than any other method retrieve one.
That one, of course, is conducting tests on humans. This happens already, but that is to say on drugs which have be previously tested on animals. The testing on animals way that, when taken to human level, they more or smaller number know what effect it will have, and they know it won't be anything time threatening, and any danger involved is completely, very small.*
I don't know nearly you, but were this not the satchel, and I was offered sizeable amounts of money to test a drug which doctors didn't know what the predictable results were, or whether it be potentially life threatening, I wouldn't adopt.
*The recent TeGenero blunder happened because it be tested on humans, despite that it killed most of the animals it be tested on.
More Questions & Answers...
Answer:
No! Okay, maybe that's too simplistic an answer but I own good reason for saying no. The largest reason is the sickening hardship and cruelty face by animals for the lack of TRUE medical develoments. For example, chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal world are immune to AIDS and Hepatitis. This, for me, provides the clearest indication that comparing animal and human subjects is totally flawed as a irrefutable method. Drugs that have be passed due to animal testing hold then gone on to be trialed next to humans - those which showed to cure or improve strokes for monkeys have no effect or sometimes a worsening effect on human subjects.
I would recommend anyone concerned about this subject should call in the Dr Hadwen Trust's website at http://www.drhadwentrust.org and read about how they work on research methods to ensure that animals do not enjoy to be used or harmed in the nouns of medicine.
The discovery of the Genome is so significant to the nouns of medicine it could finally see an winding up to vivisection if, and only if, scientists are allowed to speak freely in the region of their objections to animal experimentation.
Please also see http://www.animalaid.org.uk and http://www.vegansociety.com to see how you can live a cruelty free lifestyle.
Thanks for raise this important topic.
If it will save humans, next yes, it is reasonable.
I also agree its disgusting.
better to tryout on animals than humans
would enjoy to agree with you on the cosmetic front but not on the medical front.
prickly subject i know but here go -
when you know someone who is dying and their only hope of treatment is something that have been tested on animals next you may change your mind.
when you own to watch someone you love slipping away because a much needed drug hasn't but finished trials due to upset on the testing of it on animals you may evolution your mind.
sorry if i offend anyone but this is a subject i surface strongly about, at hand are no winners.
You really, DON'T want to get me STARTED, on this subject, - so, I'll of late say, that I TOTALLY agree, beside you! Vivisection is BARBARIC!
I agree on the cosmetic arguement -
But when face with a potentially terminal disease, will you turn down treatment that has be tested on animals and die, rather than live to a ripe dated age?
I think i know the answer.
I fully agree, I make homemade cosmetics, hairspray, gel, shampoos, etc, so I cant see why its necessary to testing on animals at all. The cruelty that these little beings walk through for mankind is shocking.
To the individual who said chimps are our closest relative, I enjoy an FYI - We differ from chimps by 2% DNA. We differ from dolphins by only 1% DNA.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is doing adjectives they can to end animal trialling.
From Vivisection is Absurd . org
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen contained by animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal test and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal test are immediately discarded as useless or dicey to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the bazaar cause cancer contained by laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal test are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., cause tumours in mice. They said the animal theory test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are one and only 37% effective surrounded by identifying what cause cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost other used in cancer research. They never win carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factor such as diet and bedding. Bedding has be identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in one and the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond beside humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats contained by a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturer of the drug Surgam failed due to the nouns of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon liquid is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are undisruptive according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human ailment. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are cause by drugs which are passed as being sheltered in animal test, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defect are caused by drugs passed not detrimental in animal test, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post period of war levels.
(19) One contained by six patients in hospital are in that because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 death a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people be hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more probable to develop measles if they had be vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicine have be released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, one and only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of life illness are cause by medicines. All own been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies be delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments be relied upon...humanity would have be robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal test, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicine. They would have be banned if vivisection be heeded.
(28) In the court grip when the manufacturers of Thalidomide be being tried, they be acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal test could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions be delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite copious Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, solely 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist beside which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die contained by laboratories each second worldwide; within the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to shelter vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could enjoy been acheived minus animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
Well IF someone "volunteers" for such a procedure well next it would be OK, otherwise I do not think it woudl be OK to "force" such a procedure onto another.
It mode something like "the SLICING and experimentation associated next to operating on a liviing subject":~is that correct?
I'm gonna dance with "no" here... I don't focus some people who answered know what vivisection is.
Absolutely not. Read, "What will we do if we don't
test on Animals by Ray Greek". You'll find that the
information they arrive at by testing on animals cannot
be responsibly applied to human science.
This is why gene dream therapy is so important.
Also, they approaching to inject animals with diseases
and place extra y and x chromosomes within them
in charge to change their sex or their position.
How sick!
People and animals are not made one and the same way. Testing human medicine on animals is absolutely useless. Not to mention apathetic and disgusting.
No it isn't.
It is pointless whether it's for medicine or cosmetics.
Why? Because adjectives species-even those closely related like chimps-react surrounded by different ways.So a drug that is fine for a chimp may slay a human.The same applies for diseases.Chimps-our closest living relatives-are immune to 98% of illnesses that affect us.
So drug tests own to be done all over again on human volunteers.
Therefore what is the point?Makes as much sense as a vet trialling medicine for a dog on a cat.
PETA once said, 'if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we wouldn't support it'.
Rarely is anything said that make my blood boil as much as that does. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is a truly horrific disease, claiming millions of people every year, tons of them children, none of them deserving. I'm sure you all know the mount of the problem in Africa, as it's so very well publicised on TV.
PETA would condemn millions of innocent people, ethnic group no different to yourselves, to death for the sake of a far substandard number of animals. I don't dislike animals in the most minuscule, but I fail to comprehend how anyone can worth them over human lives.
Anyway, the animals tested upon are done so with as much fastidiousness as possible, there are law in place to ensure that, and they don't usually suffer or die as a result of the conducting tests. On the other hand, duration saving and anguish preventing drugs are provided by animal testing, that accumulate millions of people every year. If it come down to you or a family applicant, would you rather they died or used a drug that wouldn't own become available without animal trialling to save their energy? Even the famed Linda McCartney used drugs tested on animals when push came to shove.
The certainty is animal testing is entirely critical. It may not be perfect, and we may not be close ample to animals for it to give a completely accurate result, but it's better than any other method retrieve one.
That one, of course, is conducting tests on humans. This happens already, but that is to say on drugs which have be previously tested on animals. The testing on animals way that, when taken to human level, they more or smaller number know what effect it will have, and they know it won't be anything time threatening, and any danger involved is completely, very small.*
I don't know nearly you, but were this not the satchel, and I was offered sizeable amounts of money to test a drug which doctors didn't know what the predictable results were, or whether it be potentially life threatening, I wouldn't adopt.
*The recent TeGenero blunder happened because it be tested on humans, despite that it killed most of the animals it be tested on.
More Questions & Answers...