Science and Animal testing is barbaric and not useful to humans

Anthropal: "I gave you a first hand testimonial direct from the source as addressed to the Forum."

could you posit the link to refresh me?

-solaris

http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/02/20/science-and-animal-testing-is-barbaric-and-not-use/page1/#post5949374

Like I said, first hand testimony is first hand not second hand anecdotal.

"Today started when?"
Today as in current, in use today, topically as in not historically. Nowhere does it state from what I have read in the posts here thus far.. was this thread started to discuss the history of vivisection..It was started [by a member no longer here,] as a topical grievance to animal vivisection currently in use. Are you being deliberately au contraire Anthropal or does it just come naturally?

-solaris

No, I am trying to determine a timeline

The timeline is in the OP what is there to establish except the post is current speaking of current affairs?

You like to look down on people, don't you old chum. You can keep this attitude up forever, but I doubt it will get you far. I can give you doctors and surgeons also, negating your points, and ignore your links that aren't dated also.

No yet you make it so easy for me to do so old pal..no you can`t keep this attitude up forever old boy. Although you think it has got you thus far.  Don`t plead your case man. try to have some self respect!  SHOW your case with names attached to the articles you place.
 
 oh and "You" have ignored every link I have given thus far!

Anthropal asserts in post #620 : "and ignore your links that aren't dated also."
 
Anthropal  not only ignores my links he shows he does not bother to read my posted evidence.
 
 
my posting in #576 showing names AND dates in bold.
 

+0 permalink

 

Let us look at the opposing opinions those of Doctors opposing animal Vivisection, there are quite a number, [as we can read its not just Dr Coleman]

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
- Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976. 

Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
- Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
- Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

and thats just a few, there are plenty of Doctors opposed to Vivisections as a means to test for human cures or learn surgery

Anthropal: You like to look down on people, don't you old chum.
 
I would like to know what prompted this irrational outburst?  where in this thread have I looked down on anyone?[image]

-solaris

When you started with the 'old boy' bit.

[url]
Like I said, first hand testimony is first hand not second hand anecdotal.

-solaris

*sigh* Why me all the time?
This link is the first hand testimony of a member. http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/02/20/science-and-animal-testing-is-barbaric-and-not-use/page1/#post5949374

This link also is the first hand testimony of a member. http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/02/20/science-and-animal-testing-is-barbaric-and-not-use/page29/#post15526833

This second member is openly against testing on animals, but after reading the earlier post he agreed there that it has been shown that in some instances testing has proven useful.

I would have thought the issue would have taken another tack after that admission.

I agree some testing is useful but believe humane research is the way it should be done. The link here is about testing done in California.

http://www.britches.org.uk/video.asp

Britches was the name given by researchers to a Stump-tailed Macaque monkey who was born into a breeding colony at the University of California, Riverside in March 1985. He was removed from his mother at birth and had his eyelids sewn shut as part of a three-year maternal and sensory-deprivation study involving 24 infant monkeys. The study was conducted by David H. Warren.

"Britches was removed from the laboratory, along with 700 other animals, when he was five weeks old during a raid on April 20, 1985 by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF made a videotape of their raid and of Britches' condition when they found him. As a result of the publicity when the video was released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and after condemnation of the experiments by scientists and the American Council of the Blind, eight of the 17 studies interrupted by the raid were not restarted, and the university stopped allowing baby monkeys' eyes to be sewn shut, according to reports filed by the university with the government. Dr. Grant Mack, president of the American Council of the Blind, called the experiment "one of the most repugnant and ill-conceived boondoggles that I've heard about for a long time."

Thanks CM, that was what I was touching on here:- http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/02/20/science-and-animal-testing-is-barbaric-and-not-use/page30/#post15531993
 
The link I provided later stated the following which I think is where research is at present:-
No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort, to be used only when there is no alternative method. In the UK, strict regulations and a licensing system mean that animals must be looked after properly and may not be used if there is any other way of doing a piece of research.
Non-animal methods are used for the majority of biomedical research. So animal studies are used alongside these other types of research. Such ‘alternative' methods include the study of cells and tissues grown in the laboratory, computer-modelled systems, and human patients, volunteers or populations.

Stories such as the Britches episode of 24 years ago was one reason why I was asking for a time that was relevant for this thread. I'm sure such methods would not even be considered today.

Hi coerciblemist it is the barbaric experiments in the disagreement and that your post has just reiterated, the emphasis is in the threads title, the title IMO would have read better with the title, "barbaric animal testing is not useful to humans"

Anthropal you can read  here
http://natureorgod.lefora.com/2009/02/20/science-and-animal-testing-is-barbaric-and-not-use/page31/
that my stance is changing

AnthropaI: I'm sure such methods would not even be considered today.
 

Certainty without researching into the reality is no surety.
Without tighter regulations and laws in place with better qualified scientists using proper anaesthetists in place. As I said earlier in this thread, [a couple of pages back] the call for tighter regulations is being ignored.  In europe it is growing in numbers as my previous posts and links showed and the european commission did nothing when Dr Gill Langley approached them.

this next link shows a Dr. Danny Penman [23rd July 2009] who is a supporter of vivisection but is appalled by the killing of 4 million animals..he says "As a former research biochemist, I find it perplexing that the cosmetics industry has managed to eliminate all animal testing whereas medical researchers rely on it more than ever. Why are there so many animal experiments when there are alternatives? "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1201556/DR-DANNY-PENMAN-I-support-vivisection-really-kill-4million-animals.html

"I do not dispute for one moment that some animal experiments are vital to medical progress. But for solid scientific reasons, I do question whether the sheer extent of such tests in modern medical science is necessary.
Many medical researchers will agree with me. Put simply, as often as not, testing drugs on animals very often gives misleading results that can endanger human health.
This is not an extreme viewpoint. New Scientist magazine recently described the results of animal medical experiments as 'no more informative than tossing a coin'. I would not go that far myself, but I do believe that vivisection is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, lethal. "

Dr. Danny Penman [July 2009]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1201556/DR-DANNY-PENMAN-I-support-vivisection-really-kill-4million-animals.html#ixzz0Vz1rUgT6

I agree the title would be better as  "barbaric animal testing is not useful to humans"

Anthropal you can read  here
[url]
that my stance is changing

-solaris

Solaris, you linked to a page. There is a feature here on the posts called 'permalink'. Clicking it gives the actual post you wish me to read.

AnthropaI: I'm sure such methods would not even be considered today.
 
Certainty without researching into the reality is no surety.
Without tighter regulations and laws in place with better qualified scientists using proper anaesthetists in place. As I said earlier in this thread, [a couple of pages back] the call for tighter regulations is being ignored.  In europe it is growing in numbers as my previous posts and links showed and the european commission did nothing when Dr Gill Langley approached them.

-solaris

Which is exactly what my link stated:-

No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort, to be used only when there is no alternative method. In the UK, strict regulations and a licensing system mean that animals must be looked after properly and may not be used if there is any other way of doing a piece of research.
Non-animal methods are used for the majority of biomedical research. So animal studies are used alongside these other types of research. Such ‘alternative' methods include the study of cells and tissues grown in the laboratory, computer-modelled systems, and human patients, volunteers or populations.

Can you see now why posting links isn't always helpful? Quite often people don't read them.

"I do not dispute for one moment that some animal experiments are vital to medical progress. But for solid scientific reasons, I do question whether the sheer extent of such tests in modern medical science is necessary.
Many medical researchers will agree with me. ...

-solaris

You do realise that the link I provided was written by doctors and professors of medicine, and that link actually says virtually the same thing?

No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort, to be used only when there is no alternative method. In the UK, strict regulations and a licensing system mean that animals must be looked after properly and may not be used if there is any other way of doing a piece of research.
Non-animal methods are used for the majority of biomedical research. So animal studies are used alongside these other types of research. Such ‘alternative' methods include the study of cells and tissues grown in the laboratory, computer-modelled systems, and human patients, volunteers or populations.

I agree the title would be better as  "barbaric animal testing is not useful to humans"

-coerciblemist

Now this is getting more to the point, thank you CM.
My earlier point was that should we consider ourselves above other animals, or should we be aware that for our species' survival or wellbeing some testing of other species is necessary? One must then define what would be considered as barbaric.

I agree the title would be better as  "barbaric animal testing is not useful to humans"

-coerciblemist

Actually barbaric testing is useful to humans.
Maybe the title should be "barbaric animal testing is not necessary for animal testing to be useful to humans"

Anthropal: No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort


The point that they are being used unnecessarily and as a first resort makes the claim false. There is no signature or date or times on the article linked either?



Anthropal: Can you see now why posting links isn't always helpful? Quite often people don't read them.

No I don`t see how using my words and adding a link to back my claims to professional doctors and surgeons verifying them ...as just a waste of time, and I find your tone patronising and condescending.
Considering you like and don`t mind links to evidence in most claims others including yourself, use when it suits your case .. I suspect you wish it was only my own word being used here, then you could abuse my opinion as being uninformed and irrelevant. Its becoming a tedious no go situation with you Anthropal .


Anthropal: Actually barbaric testing is useful to humans.
Maybe the title should be "barbaric animal testing is not necessary for animal testing to be useful to humans"


I can`t make head or tail of this comment? what are you saying?

Sol