Farlander Central

Argument in Favour of Animal Testing

Opening statement by Jazmella:

"...the researchers could begin animal testing by the end of this year"

Grrr, fucking humans!! TEST ON YOURSELVES, FAGGOTS!! Ugh!!

jazmella wrote:

mr47 wrote:

Who cares? It is just small rodents.

I care.

I don't care how fucking big or small they are. It's not the size that counts (in this case).

Like it or not, animal testing is crucial in the development of drugs and vaccines. We're talking about newly synthesized, newly created drugs of unknown potency -- and don't anybody give me that crap about testing it on tissue cultures; things don't work the same way in vitro as in vivo! -- and there's the need to assess its potential and good and determine its lethal dose and side effects. I don't know if you know what the Hippocratic Oath is, or the Nuremberg Code, but there are certain things called medical ethics. You can't subject patients to possible harm that the medical community doesn't know about, even if they volunteer. Let me quote this bit from the Nuremberg Code so that you can educate yourself:

3. The [human] experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

Would you like it if somebody came up with a new drug whose potency and lethal dose nobody knows about (or is not standardised or uniform), and gave it to you without knowing what it could do to your body? Did you know that in 1937 over a hundred Americans died from consuming a sulfanilamide drug because there was no drug safety testing and the pharmacy companies had used diethylene glycol as a solvent for the drug? How are you going to do drug testing for, say, cholesterol-lowering drugs on human subjects? In the laboratory, it's done by feeding animals high-cholesterol diets and testing the drugs on them. Do you think you'd get human volunteers who'd be willing to go through the same, and have their hearts dissected and their aortas examined? Does anybody want another thalidomide tragedy?

I know that animal testing seems cruel, but it is necessary to choose the lesser of the two evils, especially when it could save more lives in the long run! (and they're now actually refining the testing procedure so as to cause the least amount of pain and suffering upon the animal as is possible, so it's not like they're not doing anything about the whole thing)

It seems that you've been fed far too much of one side of the story without knowing the truth about the other side. My advice to you is this - stop hanging out with the extremists for a bit, and go out and actually read up on verifiable scientific literature (scientific journals are a good start: http://www.sciencekomm.at) so that you actually know what it is you're actually arguing about.

Illegal Swimming wrote:

The only thing i am afraid of is the after effects, or the later on effects this "VIRUS" will have. Maybe after awhile it will mutate into a Cholera or worse mutated version of AIDS.

Dear Lord. And the aetiological agent for cholera isn't even a virus. It's a bacteria called Vibrio cholerae. (and yes, I'm a bacteriologist)

Jazmella wrote:

You're wrong, kfarlander. Stop saying "animal testing is necessary" blah blah blah. It's NOT, dammit. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. Argh. Why do I even bother? Humans are stupid.

jazmella wrote:

You're wrong, kfarlander. Stop saying "animal testing is necessary" blah blah blah. It's NOT, dammit. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. Argh. Why do I even bother? Humans are stupid.

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it, seeing as I'm the one who's a biologist and working in a lab that's handling some of the third world countries' dangerous microorganisms...

Jazmella wrote:

Did anyone not hear me say there are such things as ALTERNATIVES?? You don't HAVE to test on animals, dammit! There doesn't HAVE to be an evil committed in the first place! ARGH! Oh nevermind, it's pointless.

kfarlander, I don't CARE what you do. That makes no difference to me.

Sticky's Ex wrote:

You know what, jazz? You're anger is horribly hard to swallow. For all the compassion you say you have, you've got some pretty bad vibes going on for you, girl. In fact, its such a turnoff that I haven't been in for more than a week.

Now, here's the thing. You keep saying that humans are bad/evil/heartless etc... and animals are the best so on so forth. Fine... great.

Here's my thought: there isn't an ounce of compassion in you. And if there is, it just doesn't seem to be manifesting itself. Let me, for the sake of nothing else to say, tell you a bit about the humans. The bad and evil researchers. People who spend their lives in the lab... working on animals perhaps... not all, but some, those who would be deemed inconsequential to you.

There is Ms P, who worked for years in a lab, only to find out she had cancer. And she fought her battles, and now she's losing her sight. For what? Well, only to save as many people as she can from Hep B. But too bad, people don't matter to you. Try sitting in a room with a colleague and not knowing what to say to her when she worries about her family, or when she will die.

And then there is my grandfather. Who was looking for a better way to grow plants. He, and 4 other people in his laboratory, were mouth-pipetting a type of benzene. Do you know what it did to them? They who were the human guinea pigs of science? Those who work for the betterment of men? Cancer got to them. It turned their lungs into thin sacs of liquid. My grandfather died a slow lingering and painful death. My mother was in her early 20's and my aunt was only 12. He did this, put his life into his work, left a wife and 5 young children, just so that people like you, jazz, can say that all humans are bad, and not worth the lives they put into their work.

And then, there's myself. Major lab rat. At 23, i took out an insurance policy on myself, because i thought i was going to die from lab induced illnesses. Like my grandfather. At the very least my parents will have the money to bury me. For the record? I have dissected rats before. All in the name of science. And I've also been a test subject before as well. They took blood from me, collapsed my vein, did a whole lot of stuff that were jolly painful and sent me into shock. But that's cool, got me ready for my tattoo

Maybe you need to have more respect for people, jazz, and you'd find that they aren't all too bad themselves. Life may seem awful, but we're trying out best. We, the scientists may seem awful to you, but we're trying our best as well.

And Science marches on..

p.s. you better care what farlander does, because she put her life on the line for the likes of you. Grow up, little miss, and see the compassion in others.

Jazmella wrote:

My mom also died of cancer a little over a year ago. So don't say I have no compassion. I do, just not for the fuckers who hurt/eat animals, since we have alternatives now. There's no need for this crap to occur anymore. I thought humans were supposed to be evolving and advancing? We're not. Sure, technology is, but that's all.

Jardel wrote:

Jazmella wrote:

My mom also died of cancer a little over a year ago. So don't say I have no compassion.

One thing's got nothing to do with the other.

I do, just not for the fuckers who hurt/eat animals, since we have alternatives now. There's no need for this crap to occur anymore. I thought humans were supposed to be evolving and advancing? We're not. Sure, technology is, but that's all.

Nobody in the creditible medical science community hurts animals to be malicious, they only do it when they think it's to make the world a better place and only then taking care to do it in the most humane manner so as to ensure the animals don't suffer.

Don't say there are alternatives, because there arean't. It's that simple. To be 100% sure that it works you need to test it in a 100% enviroment, that means testing it on animals before you test it on humans because quite frankly, animals are better able to soak up the sacrifice and less inconvienced by it.

Now if you really find animal testing so disturbing that you can't abide it and you have no compassion for anyone who advocates for it, I suggest you take a long time out to look deep in yourself and find out exactly what about animals hurting bothers you so much. Because it's not going to be as simple as "I feel sorry for them" or "I love them".

DISCOURSES