i dont get paid to belive i get paid to destroy things
Written by: Doc Lightning
It doesn't surprise me that the ALF would rather save lab rats than children.
After all, how many kids would be alive if we could...say...grow new livers or kidneys or hearts for them?
None of which would, of couse, be possible without animal research.
Written by: onewheeldave
I'd be willing to bet that if, for some reason, animal testing was abolished completely, medical progress would continue
"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!
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
"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!
Written by: onewheeldave
Of course, in a world where cars didn't work, journeys would be slower, but, as I said earlier, society wouldn't cease, it would just require modification; and, after that modification is in effect, perhaps the disadvantages of not having cars would be more than offset by the advantages of a car free civilisation.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Written by: Lightning
Saying that medical progress is not dependent on the use of animal research is like saying that the movement of an automobile is not dependent on gasoline.
Written by: Lightning
Dave, you're out of your league here. Ever done animal research? Ever gone to medical school? Have a graduate degree in biological sciences?
Written by: Doc Lightning
Dave, you're out of your league here. Ever done animal research? Ever gone to medical school? Have a graduate degree in biological sciences?
Those of us on this site who have any or all of the above qualifications agree on this point. Without animal research, we'd have pretty much none of what we have today. There'd be no antibiotics, no anti-cancer drugs, precious little surgery, and things like biologic drugs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, kineret, etc.) could never be developed.
EVEN if you dropped all morals and used humans like lab animals, humans take 20 years to reproduce, are large animals, and don't come in pure-bred lines. And they smell and are finicky about mating.
You're nitpicking and it's not productive. It's like requiring 100% proof that evolution happens or something. There are no absolutes, but without animal research, I'd be a cripple right now. And most of us would be dead.
Written by: Doc Lightning
Medical progress would grind to a pace so slow that to the average human being it would appear to be stopped. Much less than 1% of the current rate of advance, anyway.
Written by: Doc Lightning
There are no absolutes, but without animal research, I'd be a cripple right now. And most of us would be dead.
"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!
Written by:
Firstly, I've yet to condemn animal research- my initial post was simply saying that, IMO, medical progress would not cease if animal research did.
I stand by that.
My opinion on medical experts is that they are experts in their respective fields- but being an expert in branches of modern medicine does not, IMO, make one particularly more qualified to comment on many animal research issues; including the morality of animal use, and, more pertinantly, what would happen to medicine if it ceased- those are not medical questions.
Written by:
You can't seriously believe that, in a world where use of animals for research is rife, totally accepted and held as necessary for medical progress; that the kind of options and solutions that would be developed and researched in a world where animal research is impossible, will be granted the same kind of funding and incentive to investigate fully.
Written by:
What about civilisations pre-modern medicine. Death rates may have been higher, but it certainly wasn't the case that most of the population were dead. And, when rates were high, it was due to unhygenic social conditions, famine, etc- not the fact that they didn't test their herbs on animals.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Written by: lightningWritten by:
Firstly, I've yet to condemn animal research- my initial post was simply saying that, IMO, medical progress would not cease if animal research did.
Problems with the "quote" function messing up on posts with embedded quotes can be rectified by cutting out the ... stuff as you preview your reply, leaving just the quote and /quote in square brackets.
ie-
(quote: original post)
(quote: embedded quote)
original quote text- hgjgfkdhfgjtydr
(/quote)
comment on embedded quote-hrdsjtdsjtsjwqtre
(/quote)
With the quotes wrapped in square brackets instead of the round ones I've used here.
HOPs quote function should do it automatically, but it's obviously broke sometimes.Written by: lightning
I say that for all intents and purposes, no new medical therapies would be developed. Perhaps a few surgical devices, but that's all.
In my opinion that's not corrent.You seem to be working on the assumption that, if there's no direct alternative to testing drugs on complete mammals with quick lifecycles (animals) then research will cease.
I put it to you that if animal testing becomes impossible, ie, it is no longer an option- however much medical people hanker after it and bemoan the fact that it was by far the best way to test drugs, it's all in vain because it is simply not an option.
Given that (the impossibility of animal testing), I believe that progress in medicine development (ie not just surgical tools) will continue.
Currently, testing on humans is restricted soley to drugs that have recieved extensive animal testing- in the scenario I'm speaking of, human testing will happen earlier, ie, in the absense of alternatives, drugs will be tested on humans.Written by: lightning
As for the bit about being an expert in a branch of moderrn medicine, tell me, what credentials would satisfy you? I'm not talking about the morality of the use of animals. I'm talking about the practicality of it.
The same as any other discussion- speak sense, back it up with facts, and don't claim that your opinion on moral and health issues is superior to mine purely on the grounds that you're a qualified medical practitioner.Written by: lightning
In pre-modern medicine time, fully one third of women died in childbirth or as a direct complication thereof (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, etc.) Average life expectancy was less than 40 and causes of death were things like abscessed teeth (which would seed brain abscesses), appendicitis, and other now easily treated infections. Nobody died of cancer or heart disease because they didn't live that long.
In those times, slavery, oppression and bad social conditions were rife- I don't believe that the human animal is of such bad design that, in non-oppressive, decent environmental conditions, a 1/3 will break and die.
But, putting that aside, let's not confuse the scenario I'm talking about post-animal testing, as being the same as living in the past. We have a modern civilisation- at the very, very worst, even if medical progress did slow or stop, we'll still possess the medical technology and drugs that we have already.Written by: lightning
Keep arguing, Dave. I think I've made my point.
If your arguments are good then they should stand for themselves, you don't need to beef them up with these little digs.Written by: lightning
And I still stand by my statement that all who believe that animal research should stop should wear identification tags informing all medical personnel that under no circumstances do they want any form of medical care.
I know (from previous threads) you've got issues with those who believe that animal testing is immoral, and who believe that there are viable alternatives to it.
Which is why I've continually pointed out on this thread that I've not been talking about the rights and wrongs, or pros and cons, of animal testing- that issue has its own threads elsewhere. It also tends to result in hostility, bad reason and personal attacks."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!
Written by: onewheeldave
What about civilisations pre-modern medicine. Death rates may have been higher, but it certainly wasn't the case that most of the population were dead. And, when rates were high, it was due to unhygenic social conditions, famine, etc- not the fact that they didn't test their herbs on 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
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Written by: onewhelkdave
I'd be willing to bet that if, for some reason, animal testing was abolished completely, medical progress would continue.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
"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
Written by: coleman
"in the scenario [dave is] speaking of, human testing will happen earlier, ie, in the absense of alternatives, drugs will be tested on humans."
dave says this as if it is a certainty yet where is the evidence for that?
if animal testing were banned, what is there to suggest that human testing laws would then be relaxed?
in your own words dave: "speak sense, back it up with facts, and don't claim that your opinion on moral and health issues is superior to [anyone else's]".
Written by: coleman
in a social climate where animal testing is branded as immoral and is banned worldwide, it seems to me that loosening the restrictions on human testing would be so unlikely that it is not even a practical possibility, much less a certainty.
Written by: coleman
the most abrasive part of this 'discussion' for me dave is that you have admitted that it is an almost purely hypothetical situation ("practically speaking, it's not going to happen") yet you continue to persue that line of argument as if it is of paramount importance to this issue, even though your assertion was initially agreed with, confirmed and better qualified by both mike and myself.
i apologise if i am being presumptuous but as far as i can tell, you *are* nitpicking dave.
cole. x
"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!
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Written by: brodieman
awww one wheel dave i feel ignored i was intrest on your prespective on what i said
"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
Written by: brodieman
one wheel dave- im afraid your clutching at straws
Written by: brodieman
Wait i just thought of somthing.....
If animal testing became banned, no more research would happen it would halt... because many of the researchers would be dead when the next pandemic hits
Their have been a few in the last few years
Super T.B. (very resistant) out breaks in south america
Bird flu
Aids (not treatable but better controled than ever before)
Written by: Birgit
If human testing was allowed, it would be forced on people. Either like it was previously suggested in another thread, on prisoners, which has already happened in the context of some of the worst dictatorships. Take Mengele as an example - unfortunately none of his research turned out to be any use, and look at how much pain was involved. Or maybe like the stuff soldiers got in the first Gulf war, where they didn't even know what they were getting and came home with horrible diseases the army didn't want to know about.
The most likely thing however is that people will be offered money. This is already happening in (semi-safe since previously tested on animals...) clinical trials, but also less legally in poor countries like Romania. Young healthy poor people get stopped at stations or job agencies and asked if they want to sell a kidney so that some rich fxxk who doesn't give a damn about others can get a transplant. Technically, you can survive with one kidney, so lots of people agree, not thinking that if the other one gets damaged they're screwed.
This would happen for medicine trials. Poor people would be talked into it or approach the pharma companies themselves to make some money, and their bodies and their desperate situation would be used without mercy.
The only alternative to any of these is to pass a law that states random people will be picked for experiments, like let's say jury duty. This is very unlikely, given that the random selection would include the people that pass the laws, who I don't think would be very happy about it.
So even if I thought that scientifically it would be a valid alternative, I can't agree to human testing being morally acceptable any more than animal testing.
"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!
Written by: onewellydave
If you really don't like discussion of hypothetical scenarios, then maybe you shouldn't discuss them
They are part of what it is to debate issues- this is a discussion board, you may not like what I'm saying, but please appreciate that I'm saying it in a polite, non-aggressive way.
Written by: onewellydave
There is a point to my hypothetical example- Mike said words to the effect that medical progress was entirely relient on animal testing.
I dispute that, totally. If I can show that, should animal testing become impossible, medical progress would continue (and continue properly, not at 1% of it's current levels- that would be nit-picking), then it effectively shows Mikes assertion to be flawed.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Written by: onewellydave
And, considering that all I was claiming, was that, were animal testing to cease- medical progress would continue; there's no reason for me to have an opinion on the issue you mention.
Written by: onewellydave
1. test drugs on willing human volunteers who know the risks, get substantial rewards for volunteering, and are in no way coerced (much as current drug testing on humans is done).
"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
Written by: coleman
without a context (e.g. vivisection banned on moral grounds), it is not coherent to state these 'changes as a result of the decision to ban animal testing' as anything other than 'another possibility'.
your reasoning when it has come to the crunch is not to prove that it would be the case but rather to say that 'you would bet that it would' - i.e. you personally think that those changes (animal testing banned lead to human testing extended) describe the most likely case.
as you yourself said, without evidence to back it up, your 'bet' that human research would be the dominant factor in continuing medical research if vivisection were banned, is no more valid than mike's opinion that medical research would all but cease as human testing is not a valid option medically/clinically, economically, morally, or numerically (as i said before i believe).
cole. x
"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!
Written by: BirgitWritten by: onewellydave
1. test drugs on willing human volunteers who know the risks, get substantial rewards for volunteering, and are in no way coerced (much as current drug testing on humans is done).
That's where I think you're wrong... substantial rewards are coercing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be offered or needed to get enough volunteers.
"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!
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Written by: brodieman
AS for their has been no pandemics that could wipe out large portions of the population um you will find their have been for example
The bubonic plague, killed a third of europe
Measles before the imunisation killed milloins
Rubella tended to leve people dehabilitated
T.B. we were on the verge of a epidemic before be started carpet imunisation
Remember what happened to native americans when the spanish arrived, milloins died of desease, which is now theorised to be the common cold
respect the bug!!! lol
"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!
Written by: coleman
since this didn't seem to be the right thread to suggest a thought experiment in, i proposed what i thought would happen in the real world.
i stated a few posts back that:
"animal testing will not be banned without massive worldwide debate on the subject - they won't just stop it and say 'right, lets see what happens now'.
it is my view that animal testing would not be prohibited without a suitable way forward for medical research being identified first.
to approach it in any other way is highly negligent."
Written by: coleman
however, if the given scenario is "animal testing has ceased to be an option", i would bet that.....
Written by: coleman
however, if the given scenario is "animal testing has ceased to be an option", i would bet that:
many of the major pharma developers would file for bankruptcy within a year,
without these companies, the resources available for drug development would have diminished to the point that even if human testing was considered a viable option and was permitted (which i do not think it would be under just about any circumstances), it would be too late to affect the state of the industry.
the primary responsibility for drug development and medical research as a whole would then lie with universities and hospitals (possibly using experimental drug testing procedures) and thus would slow to a pace that is incomparable to todays rate of progress.
i.e. it would signal the end for many of the major medical research players and lead to a disaster in terms of the future of medical research and progress.
that's my bet.
cole. x
"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!
Written by: dave
Given that currently, the pharmacutical companies made stupendous amounts of profit from testing and producing drugs
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Written by: coleman
as i have repeatedly stated its a non-workable idea - not only for moral reasons but for clinical, practical and economic reasons.
Written by: coleman
look up what is required for a drug to be developed, approved and to eventually make it to market and try to work out how that could be changed to replace testing on animals with testing on humans.
look at the number of animals required to develop a drug, at what stage that occurs and how many of the animals die at this stage.
also note how many drugs are abandoned at this stage of development due to unacceptable side-effects (e.g. kidney or liver failure).
then look at the number of case studies that are required with regards to human subjects.
the numbers simply don't add up.
"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!
Written by: NYC
It's all kind of a moot point. Since the LD50s of every major compound has been established there really ISN'T any animal testing going on these days. Just check an MSDS and you'll find it. Heck, you can even look MSDS for any compound on the internet.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]