I just read some information on this site about animal testing

Just a little rant by the way lawl

If you do 'debate' with your friend next time I'm sure you could push the point that alot of companies pay people to test their products on, and that this is a better way to do it, seeing as the animals can't consent to the testing.

I just can't believe how many animals they test the same products on just to come to the same conclusion, animal testing really makes me angry. It should be tested on consenting humans!

Now why would we do that? It might hurt us >__>




*sarcasm by the way....*

What is also notable, and I apologise if this has already been stated, but it is often not, is that human medicine cannot be reliably based on even primates, let alone any other species. It is true that over 99% of our DNA are held in common with chimpanzees but, to put this in [perspective, 60% of our DNA is common to bananas and 50% with cabbages. Needless to say 60% of human diseases will not be cured by banana experiments. As far as chimpanzees go they do nto get HIV AIDS, malaria, hepatitis to name afew disease which kill millions of humans each year, they can be given polio only via the respiratory system whereas humans get it via the digestive system, this delayed polio research by 29 years, can consume strychnine without ill effect and do not get lung cancer from smoking. This is the BEST animal for human research, the rest are even poorer models.

Humans now have 30,000 (thirty thousand) diseases. One would think that with 60 million animals a year being killed in medical 'research' (and billions of dollars spent) they could cure just one of them.

How did we end up with so many diseases? Well exposure to adn consumption of hundreds of thousands of artificial substances amy be a contributing factor. Yet, theses substances, along with strychnine, cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, botulin, asbestos, DDT, benzene, HIV infected blood and cigarettes to name a few, all pass animal 'tests'. In reality the only health being protected here is the financial health of soem very powerful industries, particularly the pharmaceutical (side effects from which are the fourth largest killer in teh USA) and petro chemical industries. The fact that their products pass animal 'tests' has traditionally been an effective legal defence.

Real scientific methods do exist and they are faster and cheaper. The problem is that they would show these products to be harmful rather than 'safe'. See www.curedisease.net or www.curedisease.com

"The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons", Dr Ralph Haywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences
permalink

Thanks everyone, specially you Arnie.
I'm sure to use these points.

Also i might ask them what their idea is of humans testing for animals.

Thanks Callum, nothing id rather do. What site were you referring to in your first post?
ps beware of fake sites pretending to be anti-viv but in fact supporting it, there are many (and groups, activists etc)

this website "

I have found it hard being the only vegan in psychology so i dont even bother with the animal debates anymorelol everynow knows where i stand, they just look at me at the mention of animal testing.

Welldone Azzmillon. you may want to direct them to speak campaigns, they cover it well