Question About Animal Testing...

[NebtAnhai]

...Let me start by saying, I think it is sad that poor little animals are harmed everyday by scientists who cut open their skulls and smear rouge on linnocent lab animals to test for rashes. I do believe animals have emotions, feelings and suffer from pain like humans do. But I pose this question...

How should our products be tested? We do test on humans.
Hence the:
placebo vs. the real drug testing.

Should humans be the ones tested on? When searching for that AIDS vaccine that infects the lab rat and kills him with a deadly concoction, should that be a human? What other solutions are there? I really want to know of someone has come up with a better solution.

I am an animal lover. I have 2 dogs, 2 cats, 4 fish and 2 snails. I am also a carnivore, eating chicken, beef, fish and pork. I know that at least 20 animals die in a city pound by the hand of a non-veterinarian everyday, more if FIV or Distemper outbreak comes through.

So I ask, what better solution is there? What if we cloned animals and then used them for testing. Or what about cloning a human for testing, then we might know exactly how to cure the ailment per person. Seriously, should we just not test products at all? Thus allowing all children, all people to be abused by the whim of a new product producer? There has to be a subject, so who is it? Our army men and women? Too late for that, they use them as guinea pigs already, hence the HIV vaccine my cousin had to take. Hence the babies bornwith fins to some of the men who returned from desert storm. It was the Mustard Gas Vaccine.

So come on people? Who? What creature?

[ap Dafydd]

AT least as much if not more of the improvement in human life spans has come from environmental improvements rather than medical advances - delivering clear water, better housing, and better regulated workplaces have done far more to eliminate diseases than what doctors have done in laboratories. And there is still much that could be done, given the huge environmental component in diseases today throughout the world.

And, as is clear from your post, the fact that something has been approved for use doesn't mean it's safe. Thalidomide was tested on animals and approved for use and caused horrendous birth defects in humans.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Sun Sprite]

I have to admit, I don't want to use products that haven't been tested, with all my health problems and allergies, I can't afford to be a guniea pig.

Still, what they do to animals is horrible.

If they have a licensed vet, who really knows what they are doing, then testing shamppos and stuff like that on pets, then they can immediately get a allergy shot if they have a reaction. Whereas, if you get it home, and test it on you, you might die if no one is there to call 911, and you have a severe enough reaction.

There is no easy answer. Maybe if people donated their skin after they died, and there was some way the scientists could run tests on skin without it being alive would help.

[CheshireEyes]

i was gonna post something similar to this.

Here's my viewpoint. As much as i hate medical testing, i can understand it. but beauty products, hairspray (Draize (not sure if i spelled that correctly) eye irritancy test, for example), etc. I've a problem with.

If some damn idiot sprays hairspray in their eyes, they DESERVE the pain, the suffering for their stupidity. Evolution used to weed out the stupid species, now, thanks to science, we get to keep the idiots in the gene pool.

Ever heard of the flightless birds who jump off cliffs, plummeting to their death? No? Thats because they don't exist anymore, their species died out due to stupidity.

You get make-up in your eye? Suffer for it, you deserve it, idiots.

Everyone who knows me and my posts for the last year knows where i stand on animal testing and fur coats, etc.

'nuff said.

[Shanti]

There is no easy answer. Some testing I believe is needed. Some not.