Eco terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Browning

I do have to say that animal testing is very necessary and that releasing animals into the wild is very wrong. Bye the way you said you would rather see animals in the wild then in captivity and if that is the case then why do you own snakes?

---

try reading before posting.

I said id rather animals be in let loose than be the next fashion statement.

Figured you and anyone else for animal testing would throw reptiles and snakes in the mix. Me keeping snakes has nothing to do with raising minks for fur coats or testing the next new cancer that man created with new cigarette on mice or rats and so on to see the effects it MIGHT have.

Sorry i dont see the evidence that condones it.

..Not all cancers are caused by cigarettes. Some of them are known to pop up without cause.

There has been cancer since way before cigerettes. Cancer is not manmade.

If you know anyone on insulin therapy, or anyone being treated with chemo, or anyone getting organ transplants and any of several hundred other health issues, then you are saying they should die because YOU don't feel animals should be tested.

Medical testing has led to a great deal of cures and treatments. If your family member gets diagnosed with diabetes, are you going to insist they die from gangrene in their limbs after going blind slowly... or are they allowed to be treated with insulin?

It is hypocritical to keep snakes as pets and condone releasing other animals into the wild. Not to mention, peta and alf would just as happily break into YOUR home to release YOUR pets into the wild to die slowly, if they don't just set your house on fire becuase you are "cruelly" confining your animals that should be in the wild and not kept for your amusement.

ALF should be all rounded up and impriisoned for terrorist activities. Would you support terrorists if they came from India and started throwing acid on cattle ranchers and burned down your corner grocery store for the "sin" of selling beef? It's okay to eat animals, to keep them as pets, but if it's keeping them to try to cure diesese that's just wrong?

ALF = PETA = HSUS. ALL of them oppose keeping any animal for any reason. They all wouldn't hesitate to leave one of your family to burn to death in a building if it means getting THEM some PR media about animal rights. When it hits your home and life, maybe then you'll see the hypocrisy.

Hi,

Just to repeat the info that Mary Beth Sweetland, who used to be vice president of PETA is a diabetic and still seemed to have no problem taking her insulin shots produced and developed through animal testing. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Sweetland now works for H$U$ as director for something or other (sorry, I forget) having spent the interim with the Animals Defense League.

---

From a comment on this site.

I also liked this site.


dr del

I'm kinda in the middle about this.

There has been idiotic and very unnecessary animal testing. Cosmetics, for example. We don't have enough of this stuff that we need to develop more? Give me a break. You don't need to pour hair dye into a rabbit's eyes to know that it's a bad idea for humans to do this to themselves. Causing animals to suffer for the sake of trying out a new shampoo ingredient is wrong. Shouldn't be allowed.

There is animal testing, IMHO, that is beneficial and should be continued. Most of the surgeries that correct severe health problems were developed through animal testing. Many of the procedures that were developed through animal testing to benefit humans are now being used by vets to improve the lives of other animals. One of my own dogs had surgery to fuse two of his vertebrae after a severe injury--that procedure was developed through animal testing for humans, then it came full circle and was used to his life.

Diabetic dogs and cats live longer lives thanks to insulin, which was developed for the benefit of humans. All of the vaccines that save the lives of thousands of dogs and cats were developed through animal testing. I can remember (yeah, I'm old) dogs dying from distemper, leptospirosis, and parvo. Now these diseases are rarely found except in unvaccinated pets. We would have no means to prevent heartworms from killing our dogs and cats if it weren't for animal testing.

Animal testing in and of itself isn't a bad thing or a good thing. If it's done responsibly in order to find a means to improve the health of humans or animals and the test animals are treated as humanely as possible then it is a beneficial thing. If it's done without regard for the test animal's pain or for unnecessary reasons then IMHO it shouldn't be done at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

There has been cancer since way before cigerettes. Cancer is not manmade.

If you know anyone on insulin therapy, or anyone being treated with chemo, or anyone getting organ transplants and any of several hundred other health issues, then you are saying they should die because YOU don't feel animals should be tested.

Medical testing has led to a great deal of cures and treatments. If your family member gets diagnosed with diabetes, are you going to insist they die from gangrene in their limbs after going blind slowly... or are they allowed to be treated with insulin?

It is hypocritical to keep snakes as pets and condone releasing other animals into the wild. Not to mention, peta and alf would just as happily break into YOUR home to release YOUR pets into the wild to die slowly, if they don't just set your house on fire becuase you are "cruelly" confining your animals that should be in the wild and not kept for your amusement.

ALF should be all rounded up and impriisoned for terrorist activities. Would you support terrorists if they came from India and started throwing acid on cattle ranchers and burned down your corner grocery store for the "sin" of selling beef? It's okay to eat animals, to keep them as pets, but if it's keeping them to try to cure diesese that's just wrong?

ALF = PETA = HSUS. ALL of them oppose keeping any animal for any reason. They all wouldn't hesitate to leave one of your family to burn to death in a building if it means getting THEM some PR media about animal rights. When it hits your home and life, maybe then you'll see the hypocrisy.

---

Agree with everything you said.
I bet if the people who are SUPER against animal testing were to get cancer, diabetes, or any other illness that requires any amount of medicine/any type of therapy, they would take the treatments. It's extremely hypocritical, and if it wasn't for animal testing, there would be a lot of people dear to me (and even myself) that wouldn't be around today.

as a person with diabetes just to bring up the animal testing for diabetes insulin all insulin on the market today is human insulin with testing going on with a plant called safflower but i do belive that animal testing is very nessasry with out it even tylonol that even the most hardcore protestor uses came from at least a bit of animal testing now i DONT belive that just becuse its a lab rat means that you can throw it in improper caging that being said these org that break into buldings to save the animals are crazy the posablity that that animal has a lab created virus or something is just to great to ignore if an iradiated rabbit falls into a river that leads to a drinking water aqafir that radiation can trasfer to the population

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abaddon91

as a person with diabetes just to bring up the animal testing for diabetes insulin all insulin on the market today is human insulin with testing going on with a plant called safflower but i do belive that animal testing is very nessasry

---

You also have to take into account that without animal testing there would be no insulin therapy, no matter what the current insulin is made from. So insulin was developed with animal testing(and is now used to treat both human and animal diabetes).

I've had people say that they are allowed to use insulin, but there shouldn't be any other medical testing. I've always asked why THEY(or in two cases, their children) were so special that they should benefit from animal testing but no one else with other medical issues were allowed the possibility of treatment for their illnesses that could possibly be cured or treated with further animal testing.

I used to say that medical testing was okay, but things like cosmetic testing was not okay(my opinion). But then thinking about it, the cosmetic testing IS a medical testing really. I mean, if your 5 year old decides to pour mascara into her eye(because kids do weird stuff for no reason), how are you supposed to know how to treat that so the kid doesn't go blind? I know some things seem obvious, but think how many household products are treated if swallowed by NOT inducing vomiting vs inducing vomiting immediately?

So now I've modified to say that I'm against unnecessary invasive testing. Repetitive testing(repeating a test that's been done already) or inhumane testing if there is a viable alternative should be limited or eliminated IMO.