Animal Rights
It's an outrage. Vulnerable little animals continue to be experimented upon for no other reason than to save/prolong the lives of millions of unhealthy human beings. Even though pain might not actually be associated with such procedures one can be certain these innocent little creatures ain't gonna be feeling too good about participating in any of these programs. You can bet your life they'd much rather be out having a good time gamboling about in the woods and fields. Nevertheless, selfish vested interests continue to demand that these furry little mites continue to be sacrificed just so everybody can live longer pain free lives.
The Grumpy's Solution - Immediately after having seized power we'll be introducing a slightly controversial new law banning experimentation on all animals other than the genus homo sapiens. This new law will allow responsible citizens aged six and over to offer themselves up to be experimented upon for the good of the nation - and the animal kingdom. Volunteers will receive a large certificate, a small medal (to be worn at all ceremonial occasions) and the approbation of a grateful society. Animal rights activists will obviously want to be first in the queue but human rights extremists will naturally demand that perverts, recidivists, homicidal maniacs, illegal immigrants and the socially challenged must be given preferential treatment. Applications from guilt-racked members of the legal profession will be looked upon favourably. A modest donation will of course be expected from the nation's weirdo masochist contingent since they'll obviously want to hog more than their fair share of all the more painful procedures.
Of course the criminal element, particularly those given to lounging about in their cells all day doing nothing but fret about how they're ever going to repay society for all the trouble they've caused, won't be satisfied with just volunteering their bodies for experimentation purposes. They know a critical shortage of vital organs exists for transplant purposes and will undoubtedly be desperate to gain redemption and additional kudos for themselves by offering to contribute some (possibly all) of their own organs to good people in dire need.
The Grumpy Team, deeply concerned as we are with all the moral and ethical issues related to this very sensitive subject, couldn't possibly allow this additional privilege to be extended to the criminal fraternity under any circumstance - unless a member of the Team, or perhaps a few thousand decent hardworking members of the public, just happened to run short of an organ or two.
Peter Stokes - Party Leader
www.thegrumpyoldmenpoliticialparty.org.uk
We'd like to hear from you. Send your stories, pics and videos
Older/Newer
« Poppy appeal for volunteers | Jack at the movies - our resident film buff »
Animals deserve rights as much as we do. Little creatures dont even no what it is like to have a real family.
To be able to explore the world around them.
What an incredibly silly article.
The point is:
(a)Animals do NOT make reliable testing
models.
(b)Many/most drugs are produced for conditions that could, in many/most cases, be prevented by a simple lifestyle or environment change.
(c)Many drugs produced are merely 'copy-cat drugs' of ones produced earlier, because drug companies do not want to 'lose out' on sharing the enormous profits.
(d)There are numerous instances of drugs, declared safe after animal testing, which have caused serious or fatal illnesses in human beings.
(see (a) above).
Dr David Mitchell
Animal research provides a better model for medical research than test tubes or computers or tissue samples. Test tubes, etc, can't tell us anything about how a particular drug alters blood pressure, or heartbeats, or breathing.
It's very easy to say that lifestyle changes can make drugs redundant. But many people are born with life threatening illnesses and disabilities. Do we abandon these people, or carry on with medical research, including research done on animals.
Every drug declared safe has been tested on test tubes and other non-animal areas as well as on animals. If a drug shows problems after testing, it's also showing problems with the test tube and tissue sample techniques which complement animal research.
Fifty years ago, people with cystic fibrosis died soon after birth. Now they're living for several decades, thanks to animal research. Let's keep it legal.
Experimenting on animal researchers seems to be the best solution for medical research - both in moral and genetical way.
Testing on animals is dark age cruelty instead of new age science.
There should be more funding provided for efficient, effective and compassionate alternatives. Animal Testing is unnecessary with today's technology and innovation.
Also, we need to stop funding copy-cat useless research such as; coming up with nonsense proposals to bring in monkeys to a primate center just to get funding. Stealing primates from their natural habitats!
Stop genetically engineering diseases into animals. Cystic fibrosis into pigs and other neuro-degenerative diseases into Rheasus Monkeys. Creating life only to inflict pain and disease!
And stop thinking that animal models are going to solve our problems. We would be so much further ahead if we would have spent half as much money on better NON animal research.
We should invest today for a better tomorrow.
Kevin Elliot seems unaware that in fact each species is different at the cellular and molecular level, which is where disease occurs, and that our body systems interact and work as a whole.
He refers to CF but does not seem to grasp that the reason some humans have CF and others don't is because of tiny, tiny, tiny differences - genetic variations - between individual humans, ie between individuals of the SAME species.
So, as tiny, tiny, tiny genetic variations between individuals of the SAME species can have such a drastic effect on the whole bodysystem of an individual, the nonsense of experimenting on individuals of completely different species is absolutely clear.
Many scientists and medical professionals are against animal testing on scientific grounds, more information can be found at the website of once such group -
www.safermedicines.org
Dr Mitchell, it isn't a silly article, merely tongue-in-cheek and very effectively addressing the hypocrisy of the Animal Rights Extremists.
First of all, no one conducts experiments on animals for any other reason than the law says they must if they want to sell what they make. The drug (and other companies) would be delighted to abandon animal testing tomorrow, if they could. If you (and the AREs...assuming you aren't one???) want such testing to stop, present sufficient and compelling arguments to the law makers to persuade them to repeal the relevant laws.
Second, no drug is ever declared "safe". The term has no meaning...nothing is "safe". Safety is a relative term. You are safER in your living room watching the TV, than standing in the middle of the M1 at two in the morning wearing a blindfold...but you are not "safe". If you can't or don't want to understand this concept, you are not fit to comment on it.
For those with a true concern for the welfare of animals (to distinguish them from the psychopaths who enjoy fire bombing, grave robbery, smearing the innocent with paedophile lies, etc etc) the path to achievement lies in changing the laws on animal testing, NOT in pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo (how many times have I heard the tale that lemon juice is fatal to mice as a rationale for the abndonment of animal testing) or pretending that drugs are not necessary....try telling a patient presenting with a raging bacterial infection to go home and "change his lifestyle" and he'll feel better in the morning.
Medical and chemical research should be performed on prisoners and convicted activists as these low-life forms are closest to the rat species.
Also a Dr said: "...the hypocrisy of the Animal Rights Extremists"
What 'hypocrisy' is that?
"The drug (and other companies) would be delighted to abandon animal testing tomorrow"
That is simply nonsense -
- vivisection is big, big business in motion
- it is entirely convenient to drug companies to have results which can be pushed or denied as it suits (eg rats don't get tumours is pushed as good, rats do get tumours and the results are 'species specific')
- the experiments can be adjusted to prove or disprove anything
- just doing the experiments - which remember are easily adjustable - provides a legal alibi, regardless that the experiments are not valid for humans
- experiments on other species also keeps the one-size-fits-all mentality rolling on...
this is a very profitable approach, in Dec 2003 the then-head of Glaxo genetics said that 90+% of drugs don't work in 50%-70% of patients taking them...the NHS is still paying for those drugs though...imagine being able to sell an extra 50%-70% of your products even though they are not going to work.
"If...want such testing to stop, present sufficient and compelling arguments to the law makers to persuade them to repeal the relevant laws"
That has been done, the case against is indisputable but, as history shows us, the establishment always protects the status quo regardless of fact and reason...and those challenging it are always demonised, 'heretics', 'mad militants', 'extremists' etc.
"NOT in pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo"
It is experimenting on other species for human medical research which is pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, which is why we need scientific, human-relevant research and individually tailored medicines.
Deepak Provera, MD said: "Medical and chemical research should be performed on prisoners and convicted activists as these low-life forms are closest to the rat species."
1) It is abhorrent to suggest we should experiment on people without their informed consent.
2) We need research which is closest to, which is relevant to, the HUMAN species - rats are not just small humans, their species is different to the human species at the cellular and molecular, which is where disease occurs.
CatC; "that hypocrisy" is that all so-called animal right activists (and/or extremists) take drugs that have been tested on animals. If you hate the notion of animal testing so much, stop taking the drugs and carry a card with you letting the medical profession know that, in the event of accident or illness you don't want treatment involving such drugs.
The rest of your post is such self evident drivel it isn't worth commenting on.
""that hypocrisy" is that all so-called animal right activists (and/or extremists) take drugs that have been tested on animals. If you hate the notion of animal testing so much, stop taking the drugs and carry a card with you letting the medical profession know that, in the event of accident or illness you don't want treatment involving such drugs."
This is just a tactic by the pro-vivisection lobby to try to scare people into supporting vivisection...it is however nonsense.
I know many who don't take prescription medicines but this is to avoid giving yet more money to the pharm industry, there is no other reason to refuse them because in fact the drugs are tested on humans, in clinical trials and post-marketed -
this because not only is each species genetically different to all other species but tiny, tiny genetic variations WITHIN species make all the difference...
so, a drug which helps some humans can at best not work, at worst harm and even kill other humans...so the drugs are tested on the individuals taking them...which is why we need scientific, human-relevant research and individually tailored medicines.
"The rest of your post is such self evident drivel it isn't worth commenting on."
See my post October 2, 2008 10:03 PM re 90+% of drugs don't work in 50%-70% of patients taking them...and if you don't know they won't work you don't know they won't have an adverse effect....if you are a medical doctor you would know about 'numbers needed to treat' and therefore that what I said is NOT drivel but fact.
Refusing to address the anti-vivisection case as you have is just another pro-vivisection lobby tactic to avoid the actual issue, ie that there is no scientific case for experimenting on other species for human medical research...
I am happy to debate this with you though if you believe you know of any such case...
I have a cat.
I like cats.
I like Cats too..... they taste like Chicken!!