Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Well Pyro - I wanted to state the gov't example myself...
I close shoulders with you on this one, as I too believe that "accept it as a whole or shut up" is the wrong approach and blocks progress.
*scratches head* one other question (to me) is how close are organisms of animals to humans anyways? Are all the test results really transferrable? And further - after all this testing: Why do we still have so many problems with the (unexpected) side effects?
PS: Anyone wearing gold or gemstones in her/his jewelry - yet complaining about how the planet gets raped? Anyone driving a car, or using airplanes for travel, complaining about global warming and deminishing ozone layer, industries polluting the planet (hence buying their products)? Wearing leather shoes, belts, jackets - complaining about how animals are held and killed? Anyone complaining about how the media affect our daily life and still watching TV/ reading newspapers? Anyone refusing to vote and still complaining about the gov't? Anyone buying products made in 3rd world countries, complaining about jobs loss in the first world? Anyone disliking the MTA-workers "politricks" and still use the sub/ enjoy their service?
Anyone playing with paraffine and complaining about air pollution? etc.pp.
We all seem to be schizophrenic up to a certain point - I'd say - we just have to make an effort and at least try to improve things in the means that we have at hand...
Otherwise we should just shut up about merely anything...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143456312)
Well Pyro - I wanted to state the gov't example myself...
I close shoulders with you on this one, as I too believe that "accept it as a whole or shut up" is the wrong approach and blocks progress.
*scratches head* one other question (to me) is how close are organisms of animals to humans anyways? Are all the test results really transferrable? And further - after all this testing: Why do we still have so many problems with the (unexpected) side effects?
PS: Anyone wearing gold or gemstones in her/his jewelry - yet complaining about how the planet gets raped? Anyone driving a car, or using airplanes for travel, complaining about global warming and deminishing ozone layer, industries polluting the planet (hence buying their products)? Wearing leather shoes, belts, jackets - complaining about how animals are held and killed? Anyone complaining about how the media affect our daily life and still watching TV/ reading newspapers? Anyone refusing to vote and still complaining about the gov't? Anyone buying products made in 3rd world countries, complaining about jobs loss in the first world? Anyone disliking the MTA-workers "politricks" and still use the sub/ enjoy their service?
Anyone playing with paraffine and complaining about air pollution? etc.pp.
We all seem to be schizophrenic up to a certain point - I'd say - we just have to make an effort and at least try to improve things in the means that we have at hand...
Otherwise we should just shut up about merely anything...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143456312)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Basically guys and gals, there is a choice, offer yourself up to medical testing and just hope that what they give you doesn't kill you or worse, or accept that there are unpleasant things in life and at least there are decent people working to replace those unpleasant things with more thical alternatives.
By the way, no-one answered as to whether they would save the sealion pup or the harris hawks yet....
Basically guys and gals, there is a choice, offer yourself up to medical testing and just hope that what they give you doesn't kill you or worse, or accept that there are unpleasant things in life and at least there are decent people working to replace those unpleasant things with more thical alternatives.
By the way, no-one answered as to whether they would save the sealion pup or the harris hawks yet....
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting 
about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Re Tom...
Question 1: very. There are basic mechanisms that are the same in most mammals, which is why usually the smaller ones like mice and rat are used to mimic effects, and the use of monkeys or apes is quite rare. For studying development, flies and fish are mostly used, because for most of their proteins, a so-called "homologue" exists in humans.
Question 2: There aren't that many problems with unexpected side effects. There was 1 really really bad case in the media some weeks ago which you probably refer to, but how many positive examples make it in the press? How often do you read "new drug works in humans without major side effects"? You don't because it's not spectacular, and it's not what a large part of the public wants to read (science working, or good news in general). And even in the bad case from 2 weeks ago, as yet noone knows why it was, and there are some theories saying there have been mistakes made in the planning of the study. For other unexpected side effects, look at the "animal research myths" link I posted some days ago, and you'll find a lot of the commonly known examples explained.
Re Tom...
Question 1: very. There are basic mechanisms that are the same in most mammals, which is why usually the smaller ones like mice and rat are used to mimic effects, and the use of monkeys or apes is quite rare. For studying development, flies and fish are mostly used, because for most of their proteins, a so-called "homologue" exists in humans.
Question 2: There aren't that many problems with unexpected side effects. There was 1 really really bad case in the media some weeks ago which you probably refer to, but how many positive examples make it in the press? How often do you read "new drug works in humans without major side effects"? You don't because it's not spectacular, and it's not what a large part of the public wants to read (science working, or good news in general). And even in the bad case from 2 weeks ago, as yet noone knows why it was, and there are some theories saying there have been mistakes made in the planning of the study. For other unexpected side effects, look at the "animal research myths" link I posted some days ago, and you'll find a lot of the commonly known examples explained.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Thanks Birgit - I really like your input
^ edited my above post to ask some more questions about hippocricy...
And to your last post: Then (if it all IS ethical), why do we not exclusively use primates for testing? Their organism seems to be closest to ours...
Thanks Birgit - I really like your input
^ edited my above post to ask some more questions about hippocricy...
And to your last post: Then (if it all IS ethical), why do we not exclusively use primates for testing? Their organism seems to be closest to ours...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Thanks Tom I like your post about hypocrisy (spelling?????).
Well. I never said it was all ethical... just that choosing between animal rights and my life and health I know what I go for, and if anyone wants to make the other choice they're free to
Practical reasons against primates are cost and life span.
Those two go together. Cost is higher because they take longer to breed, eat more, live longer and take longer to show effects of drugs, and of course because they need way more space. You'd need about 100-200 times the buildings and personnel for primates than you do for mice/rats, at least, I'd guess. That's for space alone. Multiply by another 20 or so if you want to get through the same number of experiments (takes longer with apes), and extra space needed to store food, spare cages, etc.
The long life span means there will not be much offspring, and apart from the problem of "generating" enough animals for an experiment, things like genetically modified animals would take many years to breed whereas you can get mice within less than a year. Also, if you look for cancer, it usually develops after 1 or 2 thirds of a life span. Which for rats is a year or so, for mice less. For apes it would be years.
By the way, as far as I know (though I might be wrong), apes are usually used for behaviour studies, neuroscience and things related to the brain, because that is the main organ that's more similar to humans than those of mice, rats etc.
Also, the law is to go for what is considered the least developed animal possible for the study, and apes rank as the highest developed behind humans. This is meant to keep suffering, awareness of being caged and treated with drugs etc, to a minimum. It's not perfect but it's at least a try.
EDITED_BY: Birgit (1143457435)
Thanks Tom
I like your post about hypocrisy (spelling?????).Well. I never said it was all ethical... just that choosing between animal rights and my life and health I know what I go for, and if anyone wants to make the other choice they're free to
Practical reasons against primates are cost and life span.
Those two go together. Cost is higher because they take longer to breed, eat more, live longer and take longer to show effects of drugs, and of course because they need way more space. You'd need about 100-200 times the buildings and personnel for primates than you do for mice/rats, at least, I'd guess. That's for space alone. Multiply by another 20 or so if you want to get through the same number of experiments (takes longer with apes), and extra space needed to store food, spare cages, etc.
The long life span means there will not be much offspring, and apart from the problem of "generating" enough animals for an experiment, things like genetically modified animals would take many years to breed whereas you can get mice within less than a year. Also, if you look for cancer, it usually develops after 1 or 2 thirds of a life span. Which for rats is a year or so, for mice less. For apes it would be years.
By the way, as far as I know (though I might be wrong), apes are usually used for behaviour studies, neuroscience and things related to the brain, because that is the main organ that's more similar to humans than those of mice, rats etc.
Also, the law is to go for what is considered the least developed animal possible for the study, and apes rank as the highest developed behind humans. This is meant to keep suffering, awareness of being caged and treated with drugs etc, to a minimum. It's not perfect but it's at least a try.
EDITED_BY: Birgit (1143457435)
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Wow, I go away for a few days... posts galore...
Edit: post deleted because Birgit beat me to it.
EDITED_BY: Asena (1143457414)
Wow, I go away for a few days... posts galore...
Edit: post deleted because Birgit beat me to it.
EDITED_BY: Asena (1143457414)
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
I'm with Doc too. What's the point of taking a strong moral stance if you can't actually live your ideology, yet expect others to. Taking the stance is the easy part.
I don't find the *country* analogy applicable here, simply because is this example ( along with the flouride analogy too) there are viable alternatives. I'd support a ban on animal testing, not because I find it distasteful, but only once a suitable alternative is developed, and that appears to be a long way off.
By opposing animal testing now, at this stage of scientific development what you're basically stating is a preference for the emotional state of rodents over the health and well being of humans.
I'm with Doc too. What's the point of taking a strong moral stance if you can't actually live your ideology, yet expect others to. Taking the stance is the easy part.
I don't find the *country* analogy applicable here, simply because is this example ( along with the flouride analogy too) there are viable alternatives. I'd support a ban on animal testing, not because I find it distasteful, but only once a suitable alternative is developed, and that appears to be a long way off.
By opposing animal testing now, at this stage of scientific development what you're basically stating is a preference for the emotional state of rodents over the health and well being of humans.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Stout, I respect your and I do respect Doc's point, but I cannot comply.
Why do we have to find a cure for deseases anyways? If a body is "weak", falls ill - why not let it die and natures selective force kick in?
Maybe it's better explained on a methaphore:
Two planets meet in space, one says: "You're not looking good at all. Brother you really are in bad shape! What's wrong with you, poor guy?" The other answers: "Homo sapiens."
Humans are behaving like a virus, trying to jump from this organism (earth) to the next (outta space) - and we'd well have to, as we are gradually killing our host. Ratehr reckless and without wasting much of a thought about it.
Did you ever hear of the theory that the universe is (for say) just a body (like our very own)... and that planet earth is actually one cell, or even smaller, one atom of the entire organism? Humans would be a cancerious, or a viral infection.... [/sarcasm]
But somehow this is accompanying the "morals and ethics" thread, don't you reckon?
Suffering is wrong! And if someone thinks that it is not, or that only suffering of humans is wrong - then we are still living in the stone age, just using computers instead of drums.
Because just killing of our own tribe is wrong - killing the other tribes (plants and animals) is right?
If you are saying that we are steering towards a life without animal testing, then I'd be happy... just amongst those who are making sure that nobody forgets so easily about the issues that urgently need to be resolved (amongst many others)...
Stout, I respect your and I do respect Doc's point, but I cannot comply.
Why do we have to find a cure for deseases anyways? If a body is "weak", falls ill - why not let it die and natures selective force kick in?
Maybe it's better explained on a methaphore:
Two planets meet in space, one says: "You're not looking good at all. Brother you really are in bad shape! What's wrong with you, poor guy?" The other answers: "Homo sapiens."
Humans are behaving like a virus, trying to jump from this organism (earth) to the next (outta space) - and we'd well have to, as we are gradually killing our host. Ratehr reckless and without wasting much of a thought about it.
Did you ever hear of the theory that the universe is (for say) just a body (like our very own)... and that planet earth is actually one cell, or even smaller, one atom of the entire organism? Humans would be a cancerious, or a viral infection.... [/sarcasm]
But somehow this is accompanying the "morals and ethics" thread, don't you reckon?
Suffering is wrong! And if someone thinks that it is not, or that only suffering of humans is wrong - then we are still living in the stone age, just using computers instead of drums.
Because just killing of our own tribe is wrong - killing the other tribes (plants and animals) is right?
If you are saying that we are steering towards a life without animal testing, then I'd be happy... just amongst those who are making sure that nobody forgets so easily about the issues that urgently need to be resolved (amongst many others)...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Morality? Decency? A wish not to lose loved ones to the vagaries of nature? You might as well say why wear clothes?
Given that here in the UK the law states that wherever and whenever alternatives to animal testing are viable they must be used, then yes, we will eventually move away from animal testing. At some point simulation of a human being will be accurate enough to do it all by computer. Until then, there is no alternative in some cases.
Written by: FireTom
Why do we have to find a cure for deseases anyways? If a body is "weak", falls ill - why not let it die and natures selective force kick in?
Morality? Decency? A wish not to lose loved ones to the vagaries of nature? You might as well say why wear clothes?
Written by: FireTom
Suffering is wrong! And if someone thinks that it is not, or that only suffering of humans is wrong - then we are still living in the stone age, just using computers instead of drums.
Because just killing of our own tribe is wrong - killing the other tribes (plants and animals) is right?
If you are saying that we are steering towards a life without animal testing, then I'd be happy... just amongst those who are making sure that nobody forgets so easily about the issues that urgently need to be resolved (amongst many others)...
Given that here in the UK the law states that wherever and whenever alternatives to animal testing are viable they must be used, then yes, we will eventually move away from animal testing. At some point simulation of a human being will be accurate enough to do it all by computer. Until then, there is no alternative in some cases.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Tom, more hypocrisy:
I'm very convinced that 99% of anti-animal-testing-people who suggest to just let weak humans die would bring an injured or sick dog to the vets...
And why not let weak humans die? Again, 99% of anti-animal-testing-people who suggest that suddenly oppose it when it's about starving Africans who, in the system they live in, are the weak ones. And why use condoms if we can just wait for HIV to do the natural selection for us? Because we want to live, simple as that.
Would you let your daughter die if she was sick just because the only medication available was tested on animals? My parents didn't let me die when put to that question, and I'm very grateful.
Tom, more hypocrisy:
I'm very convinced that 99% of anti-animal-testing-people who suggest to just let weak humans die would bring an injured or sick dog to the vets...
And why not let weak humans die? Again, 99% of anti-animal-testing-people who suggest that suddenly oppose it when it's about starving Africans who, in the system they live in, are the weak ones. And why use condoms if we can just wait for HIV to do the natural selection for us? Because we want to live, simple as that.
Would you let your daughter die if she was sick just because the only medication available was tested on animals? My parents didn't let me die when put to that question, and I'm very grateful.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information - I think thats far from 'making up stories' do you really think I would chime in on this discussion so that I can fabricate evidence? Speaking of making up stories, yesterday there was an article in the local paper that outlined emerging evidence that the original testing of drugs given to children for ADHD actually cause all sorts of very nasty side effects that either werent reported at all, or were grossly understated. Apparently the original testing wasn't systematic.
There was also the recent case, and perhaps an English person here will be able to add clarification to this where an antidepressant that had been prescribed to minors for years led to an increase in suicide among that group.
Both of these examples support the evidence I have provided.
err - just cuz its ethical to put your life on the line for money, doesnt mean I would do it. I was suggesting that it is ethical. Why should I volunteer to do it? Im not poor enough to want to risk it. I already think pharm companies are crap why would I want to work for one?
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Pyrolific
I think the difference in compound from the natural to the synthetic is probly more likely to be so the company in question can patent it...after all you cant patent naturally occuring chems. Stick another group on there and say its better for you, and nobody's none the wiser - I could say that you are kidding yourself, however I think its a bit rude to say such things without some kind of conclusive evidence hey?
Personally I think it's something other than rude to go about making up stories about 'evil pharm companies' so things fit my world view better in the face of conclusive evidence otherwise.
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information - I think thats far from 'making up stories' do you really think I would chime in on this discussion so that I can fabricate evidence? Speaking of making up stories, yesterday there was an article in the local paper that outlined emerging evidence that the original testing of drugs given to children for ADHD actually cause all sorts of very nasty side effects that either werent reported at all, or were grossly understated. Apparently the original testing wasn't systematic.
There was also the recent case, and perhaps an English person here will be able to add clarification to this where an antidepressant that had been prescribed to minors for years led to an increase in suicide among that group.
Both of these examples support the evidence I have provided.
Written by: jeffWritten by: pyrolific
I think it would be perfectly ethical for informed adults to have drugs tested on them...
Have you volunteered yet?
err - just cuz its ethical to put your life on the line for money, doesnt mean I would do it. I was suggesting that it is ethical. Why should I volunteer to do it? Im not poor enough to want to risk it. I already think pharm companies are crap why would I want to work for one?
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Interesting approach to logic. So because a few companies did something that might be of questionable morality every pharmalogical company in existance is evil and the benifits of aspirin over willow bark is a big hoax?
So it would be alright if we substituted animals for poor people then?
I find your morals highly dubious.
Written by: pyrolyfic
Both of these examples support the evidence I have provided.
Interesting approach to logic. So because a few companies did something that might be of questionable morality every pharmalogical company in existance is evil and the benifits of aspirin over willow bark is a big hoax?
Written by: pyrolific
Why should I volunteer to do it? Im not poor enough to want to risk it.
So it would be alright if we substituted animals for poor people then?
I find your morals highly dubious.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
I think its hypocrisy that we would put a terminally sick dog down and not do the same for a completely out of it sick elderly person.
We are surrounded by hypocrisy
aside:
Im loving the suggestions that the hardcore pragmatists are making about how anyone who supports the use of morals in decision making must be living the pure life to not be a hypocrite by reflection - if you are not living the pure life you are completely evil surely?
I dont think there are many people who are arguing against animal testing that are suggesting there is absolutely no place for it and never was.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143498888)
Written by: Birgit
Tom, more hypocrisy:
I'm very convinced that 99% of anti-animal-testing-people who suggest to just let weak humans die would bring an injured or sick dog to the vets...
I think its hypocrisy that we would put a terminally sick dog down and not do the same for a completely out of it sick elderly person.
We are surrounded by hypocrisy
aside:
Im loving the suggestions that the hardcore pragmatists are making about how anyone who supports the use of morals in decision making must be living the pure life to not be a hypocrite
by reflection - if you are not living the pure life you are completely evil surely?I dont think there are many people who are arguing against animal testing that are suggesting there is absolutely no place for it and never was.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143498888)
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
jeff[fake]
I think your conceptions of logic, morals and argument and mine are so different that we will not be able to come to an understanding. The evidence I provided does support my argument. Attack the conclusiveness of it, but you cannot say that it doesnt suport the argument I'm making.
benefits of asprin over willow bark a hoax? your words Jeff. I was suggesting that the motives of the pharm company were for profit rather than altruistic as you suggest.
Dubious morals? Im not sure we share the same understanding of what ethics and morals are. But perhaps you could qualify that comment, so I can at least see where you're coming from?
jeff[fake]
I think your conceptions of logic, morals and argument and mine are so different that we will not be able to come to an understanding. The evidence I provided does support my argument. Attack the conclusiveness of it, but you cannot say that it doesnt suport the argument I'm making.
benefits of asprin over willow bark a hoax? your words Jeff. I was suggesting that the motives of the pharm company were for profit rather than altruistic as you suggest.
Dubious morals? Im not sure we share the same understanding of what ethics and morals are. But perhaps you could qualify that comment, so I can at least see where you're coming from?
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
The ONLY person?
Because your information comes from someone who works for a company... Same as, my information comes from Dr's in Pharmaceutical science who have worked in the industries. So your not the only one
This discussion seems to be giong round in circles....
Written by: Pyrolific
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information
The ONLY person?
Because your information comes from someone who works for a company... Same as, my information comes from Dr's in Pharmaceutical science who have worked in the industries. So your not the only one
This discussion seems to be giong round in circles....
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
hehe it sure does
by primary source I meant that my information comes from people who have worked or are working for pharm companies - not a textbook or nth hand info
didnt realise your sources were also ppl from pharm companies.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143504799)
hehe it sure does
by primary source I meant that my information comes from people who have worked or are working for pharm companies - not a textbook or nth hand info
didnt realise your sources were also ppl from pharm companies.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143504799)
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
No, although we have no proof of that. But your anecdotes add nothing to this debate on the usefulness of animal testing; they belong in a conversation about scientific bias or corporate profiteering.
These examples perhaps could support your claim, but they're light on the details. They sound like cases of poor testing, which doesn't argue against animal tests.
Besides, even these would not establish that animal testing overall is pointless; you seem to be operating on a logic that equates wanting something to be true to actually being true.
Once again you have completely ignored the fact that the majority of animal testing is not done by pharmaceutical companies. Would you mind addressing this?
Written by: Pyrolific
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information - I think thats far from 'making up stories' do you really think I would chime in on this discussion so that I can fabricate evidence?
No, although we have no proof of that. But your anecdotes add nothing to this debate on the usefulness of animal testing; they belong in a conversation about scientific bias or corporate profiteering.
Written by: Pyrolific
Speaking of making up stories, yesterday there was an article in the local paper that outlined emerging evidence that the original testing of drugs given to children for ADHD actually cause all sorts of very nasty side effects that either werent reported at all, or were grossly understated. Apparently the original testing wasn't systematic.
There was also the recent case, and perhaps an English person here will be able to add clarification to this where an antidepressant that had been prescribed to minors for years led to an increase in suicide among that group.
Both of these examples support the evidence I have provided.
These examples perhaps could support your claim, but they're light on the details. They sound like cases of poor testing, which doesn't argue against animal tests.
Besides, even these would not establish that animal testing overall is pointless; you seem to be operating on a logic that equates wanting something to be true to actually being true.
Written by: Pyrolific
err - just cuz its ethical to put your life on the line for money, doesnt mean I would do it. I was suggesting that it is ethical. Why should I volunteer to do it? Im not poor enough to want to risk it. I already think pharm companies are crap why would I want to work for one?
Once again you have completely ignored the fact that the majority of animal testing is not done by pharmaceutical companies. Would you mind addressing this?
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Now this may spark some controversity and I might gamble away some sympathy bonus, but what to do?
Birgit: A life is a life and what is the use of transplanting a new kidney to a 80yr old woman? (happened to my grandmother-in-law and she never got out of hospital since, died at age 81 with severe complications and pain) Same applies to the 12yr old dog. Why operating his cancer? (happened to my neighbours dog, cost about 1.500 Euros and the dog had gained another 1,5 years)
"In the end all that matters is
how much we have lived
how much we have loved and
how much we have learned to let go"
Live your life as if every day is the last, search true happyness, so when your time comes you're ready to let go in best faith that you have lived your life.
I'm not indicating that there are only cases like this - of course not! There are many more cases where a simple and easy operation assured another 40 years of a happy and uncomplicated life and where the intake of a little pill every day, turns an otherwise dead teenager into a grandparent... but what is the quality of life if you have to take severe medication, or undergo the 6th chemo-theraphy without sufficient results?
Believing in re-incarnation would make this one much easier... [/irony]
I personally can't take away the decision from anyone and I certainly do not want to. I just can take my own decisions and I rather let go and make the final time pleasant, instead of putting my beloveth one through what they have to go through in hospital. Sorry, but hospitals (to me) are horrible...
Talking about HIV and cancer: We had this discussion before and back then I received some heavy beating from jeff for the ideas that spin around in my head... certainly I wouldn't go there another time. I'm no scientist and do not hold the latest medical/ scientific evidence. All I do know is that questions have to be raised and the only thing to fear is fear itself. (Birgit: PM on the way )
We're creating a world of paranoia and this certainly is no world I want to live in.
Curing the desease at the root - not at the cause - should be the aim... Besides, is it true that rats - when facing overpopulation - develop infertility, other kinds of deseases and start killing each other? Is this result applicable to mankind too? [/irony]
Now this may spark some controversity and I might gamble away some sympathy bonus, but what to do?
Birgit: A life is a life and what is the use of transplanting a new kidney to a 80yr old woman? (happened to my grandmother-in-law and she never got out of hospital since, died at age 81 with severe complications and pain) Same applies to the 12yr old dog. Why operating his cancer? (happened to my neighbours dog, cost about 1.500 Euros and the dog had gained another 1,5 years)
"In the end all that matters is
how much we have lived
how much we have loved and
how much we have learned to let go"
Live your life as if every day is the last, search true happyness, so when your time comes you're ready to let go in best faith that you have lived your life.
I'm not indicating that there are only cases like this - of course not! There are many more cases where a simple and easy operation assured another 40 years of a happy and uncomplicated life and where the intake of a little pill every day, turns an otherwise dead teenager into a grandparent... but what is the quality of life if you have to take severe medication, or undergo the 6th chemo-theraphy without sufficient results?
Believing in re-incarnation would make this one much easier... [/irony]
I personally can't take away the decision from anyone and I certainly do not want to. I just can take my own decisions and I rather let go and make the final time pleasant, instead of putting my beloveth one through what they have to go through in hospital. Sorry, but hospitals (to me) are horrible...
Talking about HIV and cancer: We had this discussion before and back then I received some heavy beating from jeff for the ideas that spin around in my head... certainly I wouldn't go there another time. I'm no scientist and do not hold the latest medical/ scientific evidence. All I do know is that questions have to be raised and the only thing to fear is fear itself. (Birgit: PM on the way
)We're creating a world of paranoia and this certainly is no world I want to live in.
Curing the desease at the root - not at the cause - should be the aim... Besides, is it true that rats - when facing overpopulation - develop infertility, other kinds of deseases and start killing each other? Is this result applicable to mankind too? [/irony]
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
right... dunno where that idea came from.
I'm trained to be a toxicologist/pharmacologist, i.e. to carry out animal experiments if my job ever requires it (though I hope to work in science communication
), and to have been trained by "primary sources" in both academic and industrial testing. I've also said before, in this thread, that I'm currently doing a PhD on FINDING alternatives to animal testing, so I think I might be considered a bit more first hand experience than someone with a friend who works in a pharmaceutical company
Those side effects for ADHD drugs, btw, I have heard about years ago, and it has been suggested widely to stop prescribing the drugs to any child that moves too much on their seat in class, instead of just really bad cases. Even Neighbours has had some episodes on it! I think you have to live in a country where drugging children to be quiet isn't quite as fashionable yet... in Germany there are lots of reports on how, judging by the number of drugs prescribed, the number of ADHD children must be rising quicker than can be explained by any model.
I was never saying that anyone must live a pure life. You probably know how much you're exaggerating there, so I don't have to go into it much further. I don't think my suggestion that protesters put their energies into building something up instead of tearing things down or criticising without improving things is a bad one. As both Cole and I have pointed out previously, why should the ones that support animal testing for medicine change it, and not the ones that oppose it? It is like asking Bush to start a revolution and put the Democrats in power (as good an idea as that may be...).
Both Tom and pyrolific, a terminally ill sick elderly person has every right to refuse treatment and terminate their own life, while apart from refusing food, this concept is unknown to a sick dog. If a person wants to continue their life, this is their right, too. However, I was not referring to elderly people and terminal sickness. Terminal means medication won't help - I was talking about those cases where medication CAN help, and that I am unable to refuse anyone a chance of life over lab animals.
Written by: Pyrolific
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information
right... dunno where that idea came from.
I'm trained to be a toxicologist/pharmacologist, i.e. to carry out animal experiments if my job ever requires it (though I hope to work in science communication
), and to have been trained by "primary sources" in both academic and industrial testing. I've also said before, in this thread, that I'm currently doing a PhD on FINDING alternatives to animal testing, so I think I might be considered a bit more first hand experience than someone with a friend who works in a pharmaceutical company Those side effects for ADHD drugs, btw, I have heard about years ago, and it has been suggested widely to stop prescribing the drugs to any child that moves too much on their seat in class, instead of just really bad cases. Even Neighbours has had some episodes on it! I think you have to live in a country where drugging children to be quiet isn't quite as fashionable yet... in Germany there are lots of reports on how, judging by the number of drugs prescribed, the number of ADHD children must be rising quicker than can be explained by any model.
I was never saying that anyone must live a pure life. You probably know how much you're exaggerating there, so I don't have to go into it much further. I don't think my suggestion that protesters put their energies into building something up instead of tearing things down or criticising without improving things is a bad one. As both Cole and I have pointed out previously, why should the ones that support animal testing for medicine change it, and not the ones that oppose it? It is like asking Bush to start a revolution and put the Democrats in power (as good an idea as that may be...).
Both Tom and pyrolific, a terminally ill sick elderly person has every right to refuse treatment and terminate their own life, while apart from refusing food, this concept is unknown to a sick dog. If a person wants to continue their life, this is their right, too. However, I was not referring to elderly people and terminal sickness. Terminal means medication won't help - I was talking about those cases where medication CAN help, and that I am unable to refuse anyone a chance of life over lab animals.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Concerning alternatives and hypocrasy-
'alternatives' do not have to be literally drugs not tested on animals.
As I mentioned before, there are degrees to opposition to testing and not all who oppose it to some degree, think the same.
I'm sure that the more moderate opposers would appreciate initiatives that allow them to choose particular drugs according to the drugs testing history.
For example, aspirin has indeed been tested on animals- this cannot be changed (at least without the use of a time machine). New painkillers are constantly being developed, requiring new animal testing (and therefore new and ongoing animal suffering).
So, give those who oppose testing a choice- do you want this relatively new drug (presumably being marketed as having certain advantages), or, do you want the old one (which may have been tested, say, 20 years ago)?
That way, the opposer can say 'yes, for ethical reasons, I'll use the old one, even though, according to the medics, it's got some minus points).
By law, all prescribed drugs would carry the date they received their testing and it's down to the consumer to decide which cut-off dates they're happy with.
If the medical system happens to have procedures whereby even successfully tested drugs are continually re-tested, then that's their business- but doing so they're eliminating a choice that opposers would want and, by doing so, accusations of hypocrasy are, IMO, invalid.
---------------------
For those who still maintain that, since all drugs were still tested on animals in the past, however long ago it was, so those opposers using any drug, are hypocrites- I ask, 'are you American or Australian, and, do you believe it's wrong for a strong nation to, without provacation, invade the land of a weaker people, claim it for yourself and commit genocide on them?'
If so, by the reasoning you're applying to opposers of testing (being hypocrites), by staying in your country, you are also a hypocrite.
By claiming that opposers of animal testing are hypocrites because they use drugs in a system where, legally, all medicines must be tested on animals and no alternatives (other than suffering pain/dying etc) are provided, then, IMO, your use of 'hypocrasy' is so infocused that, in effect, everyone is a hypocrite in some way, regardless of how ethical they are.
Concerning alternatives and hypocrasy-
'alternatives' do not have to be literally drugs not tested on animals.
As I mentioned before, there are degrees to opposition to testing and not all who oppose it to some degree, think the same.
I'm sure that the more moderate opposers would appreciate initiatives that allow them to choose particular drugs according to the drugs testing history.
For example, aspirin has indeed been tested on animals- this cannot be changed (at least without the use of a time machine
). New painkillers are constantly being developed, requiring new animal testing (and therefore new and ongoing animal suffering).So, give those who oppose testing a choice- do you want this relatively new drug (presumably being marketed as having certain advantages), or, do you want the old one (which may have been tested, say, 20 years ago)?
That way, the opposer can say 'yes, for ethical reasons, I'll use the old one, even though, according to the medics, it's got some minus points).
By law, all prescribed drugs would carry the date they received their testing and it's down to the consumer to decide which cut-off dates they're happy with.
If the medical system happens to have procedures whereby even successfully tested drugs are continually re-tested, then that's their business- but doing so they're eliminating a choice that opposers would want and, by doing so, accusations of hypocrasy are, IMO, invalid.
---------------------
For those who still maintain that, since all drugs were still tested on animals in the past, however long ago it was, so those opposers using any drug, are hypocrites- I ask, 'are you American or Australian, and, do you believe it's wrong for a strong nation to, without provacation, invade the land of a weaker people, claim it for yourself and commit genocide on them?'
If so, by the reasoning you're applying to opposers of testing (being hypocrites), by staying in your country, you are also a hypocrite.
By claiming that opposers of animal testing are hypocrites because they use drugs in a system where, legally, all medicines must be tested on animals and no alternatives (other than suffering pain/dying etc) are provided, then, IMO, your use of 'hypocrasy' is so infocused that, in effect, everyone is a hypocrite in some way, regardless of how ethical they are.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Dave, if someone uses an old drug instead of a new drug that's a nice thing to do, but if the same person criticises, let's say, someone for whose pains aspirin won't work, for using the new drug then that's not right in my opinion.
The thing you've mentioned is as you've said a very mild degree of alternative, but it kind of implies that new drugs are unnecessary, which I believe they are not. Anyone who claims the right to use medicine has to give other people the right to have medicines developed that will help them as much as possible.
Dave, if someone uses an old drug instead of a new drug that's a nice thing to do, but if the same person criticises, let's say, someone for whose pains aspirin won't work, for using the new drug then that's not right in my opinion.
The thing you've mentioned is as you've said a very mild degree of alternative, but it kind of implies that new drugs are unnecessary, which I believe they are not. Anyone who claims the right to use medicine has to give other people the right to have medicines developed that will help them as much as possible.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
pyro,
there's a saying, walk the talk and lead by example, if you won't volunteer, who should?
pyro,
there's a saying, walk the talk and lead by example, if you won't volunteer, who should?
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Tom, the root is the cause, do you mean curing the disease not treating the symptoms?
Tom, the root is the cause, do you mean curing the disease not treating the symptoms?
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
of course, anyone in this conversation could be completely making up their evidence. I think its a given in this kind of diuscussion that you have to trust that people will not state table something as evidence that is knowingly completely fabricated. Also - people should make others aware of the source of the information - so it can be evaluated - as you have done with the things that I have put forward.
I disagree - if a drug goes through the testing process and the testing process is bunk, then the animals tested in it were harmed for nothing. Additionally - if a drug is brought onto the market the effects of which are almost exactly the same as another existing drug, then the animals in the testing of the new drug were harmed unneccessarily.
These examples perhaps could support your claim, but they're light on the details. They sound like cases of poor testing, which doesn't argue against animal tests.
Besides, even these would not establish that animal testing overall is pointless; you seem to be operating on a logic that equates wanting something to be true to actually being true.
I dont remember saying that all animal testing is pointless. Just that its unethical (harm, lack of consent), and that some of it (perhaps a majority) is unnecessary.
whoever is doing the testing doesnt matter as much as whether or not the testing is neccessary.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143582065)
Written by: spiralxWritten by: Pyrolific
lol - Im the only person here using primary sources for their information - I think thats far from 'making up stories' do you really think I would chime in on this discussion so that I can fabricate evidence?
No, although we have no proof of that.
of course, anyone in this conversation could be completely making up their evidence. I think its a given in this kind of diuscussion that you have to trust that people will not state table something as evidence that is knowingly completely fabricated. Also - people should make others aware of the source of the information - so it can be evaluated - as you have done with the things that I have put forward.
Written by: spiralx
But your anecdotes add nothing to this debate on the usefulness of animal testing; they belong in a conversation about scientific bias or corporate profiteering.
I disagree - if a drug goes through the testing process and the testing process is bunk, then the animals tested in it were harmed for nothing. Additionally - if a drug is brought onto the market the effects of which are almost exactly the same as another existing drug, then the animals in the testing of the new drug were harmed unneccessarily.
Written by: Pyrolific
Speaking of making up stories, yesterday there was an article in the local paper that outlined emerging evidence that the original testing of drugs given to children for ADHD actually cause all sorts of very nasty side effects that either werent reported at all, or were grossly understated. Apparently the original testing wasn't systematic.
There was also the recent case, and perhaps an English person here will be able to add clarification to this where an antidepressant that had been prescribed to minors for years led to an increase in suicide among that group.
Both of these examples support the evidence I have provided.
These examples perhaps could support your claim, but they're light on the details. They sound like cases of poor testing, which doesn't argue against animal tests.
Besides, even these would not establish that animal testing overall is pointless; you seem to be operating on a logic that equates wanting something to be true to actually being true.
I dont remember saying that all animal testing is pointless. Just that its unethical (harm, lack of consent), and that some of it (perhaps a majority) is unnecessary.
whoever is doing the testing doesnt matter as much as whether or not the testing is neccessary.
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1143582065)
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm inclined to agree with with Birgit on this one on the grounds that she actualy knows what she's talking about.
I'm inclined to agree with with Birgit on this one on the grounds that she actualy knows what she's talking about.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Any implication you see was certainly not intended. The post is meant purely to address what I see as an incorrect accusation of hypocrasy directed towards those who oppose, to whatever extent, animal testing.
It would simply provide a means by which they have a choice in the medicines they use and by which they can withdraw their custom for new drugs requiring further testing.
I see no reason why it should substantially effect the development of new drugs requiring new animal testing, because, as far as I can see, the majority of the population have no problem with drugs being tested on animals.
I'm certainly not implying that new drugs are unnecessary, if I wanted to say that then I'd do so explicitly.
Written by: Birgit
The thing you've mentioned is as you've said a very mild degree of alternative, but it kind of implies that new drugs are unnecessary, which I believe they are not. Anyone who claims the right to use medicine has to give other people the right to have medicines developed that will help them as much as possible.
Any implication you see was certainly not intended. The post is meant purely to address what I see as an incorrect accusation of hypocrasy directed towards those who oppose, to whatever extent, animal testing.
It would simply provide a means by which they have a choice in the medicines they use and by which they can withdraw their custom for new drugs requiring further testing.
I see no reason why it should substantially effect the development of new drugs requiring new animal testing, because, as far as I can see, the majority of the population have no problem with drugs being tested on animals.
I'm certainly not implying that new drugs are unnecessary, if I wanted to say that then I'd do so explicitly.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I didn't say I disbelieved you; but that anecdotes and personal evidence are unreliable and open to interpretation. Without the full facts of the incidents you describe I'm not going to take them as evidence for anything. This goes for all such points, not just yours by the way
But you're not talking about whether animal testing is worthwhile; you're talking about times when animal testing has been ignored or circumvented. As such what you've said doesn't make a point for or against animal testing. Well, if anything it makes the point for it - obviously in this case animal testing worked and showed a drug was dangerous otherwise the results wouldn't have been tampered with!
These are different arguments which you're combining; whether animal testing is necessary and whether it is ethical.
But then that contradicts your point about corporate tampering with the results, because then your point was that the profit motive causes animal testing to become flawed. Unless you believe that non-profit research is just as likely to lead to tampering.
I'm still seeing an emotional argument here, not a logical one. You need to separate whether you think animal testing it necessary, whether it's ethical, and then whether private research is biased. Not that the third point is really anything to do with animal testing other than in this one specific case.
Written by: Pyrolific
of course, anyone in this conversation could be completely making up their evidence. I think its a given in this kind of diuscussion that you have to trust that people will not state table something as evidence that is knowingly completely fabricated. Also - people should make others aware of the source of the information - so it can be evaluated - as you have done with the things that I have put forward.
I didn't say I disbelieved you; but that anecdotes and personal evidence are unreliable and open to interpretation. Without the full facts of the incidents you describe I'm not going to take them as evidence for anything. This goes for all such points, not just yours by the way
Written by: Pyrolific
I disagree - if a drug goes through the testing process and the testing process is bunk, then the animals tested in it were harmed for nothing. Additionally - if a drug is brought onto the market the effects of which are almost exactly the same as another existing drug, then the animals in the testing of the new drug were harmed unneccessarily.
But you're not talking about whether animal testing is worthwhile; you're talking about times when animal testing has been ignored or circumvented. As such what you've said doesn't make a point for or against animal testing. Well, if anything it makes the point for it - obviously in this case animal testing worked and showed a drug was dangerous otherwise the results wouldn't have been tampered with!
Written by: Pyrolific
I dont remember saying that all animal testing is pointless. Just that its unethical (harm, lack of consent), and that some of it (perhaps a majority) is unnecessary.
These are different arguments which you're combining; whether animal testing is necessary and whether it is ethical.
Written by: Pyrolific
whoever is doing the testing doesnt matter as much as whether or not the testing is neccessary.
But then that contradicts your point about corporate tampering with the results, because then your point was that the profit motive causes animal testing to become flawed. Unless you believe that non-profit research is just as likely to lead to tampering.
I'm still seeing an emotional argument here, not a logical one. You need to separate whether you think animal testing it necessary, whether it's ethical, and then whether private research is biased. Not that the third point is really anything to do with animal testing other than in this one specific case.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've been saying that all along! Plus, she puts everything across so well... you go girl!
Written by: jeff(fake)
I'm inclined to agree with with Birgit on this one on the grounds that she actualy knows what she's talking about.
I've been saying that all along! Plus, she puts everything across so well... you go girl!
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
spiralx;
Youre right, I need to restate my arguments for clarity - cuz I'm not seeing how your points are relating to what I've said, and that can only be because I havent been clear enough.
will do when I get some more time
spiralx;
Youre right, I need to restate my arguments for clarity - cuz I'm not seeing how your points are relating to what I've said, and that can only be because I havent been clear enough.
will do when I get some more time
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
*bows to the instant karma he was experiencing*
After the piece of "calcification" started moving from my kidney into the direction of my bladder I couldn't help it, but had to go to hospital (after 2 hours of SEVERE pain), where I was given a strong enough painkiller so to "survive" the night.
I am expecting to deliver a(n un)healthy kidneystone within the forthcoming week (I strongly hope).
And yes: curing the cause instead of the symptom I promised my body to drink at least 3 litres of water every day from this day on..
*bows to the instant karma he was experiencing*
Written by:
Sorry, but hospitals (to me) are horrible...
After the piece of "calcification" started moving from my kidney into the direction of my bladder I couldn't help it, but had to go to hospital (after 2 hours of SEVERE pain), where I was given a strong enough painkiller so to "survive" the night.
I am expecting to deliver a(n un)healthy kidneystone within the forthcoming week (I strongly hope).
And yes: curing the cause instead of the symptom I promised my body to drink at least 3 litres of water every day from this day on..
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [testing animal * acceptible] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible? [305 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com