Quote:
|
Originally Posted by orangebird
You should do your homework. There are plenty of other choices including use of cell cultures, corneal and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and mathematical models. It's not about enough human volunteersd at all. It's about COST. If I eat a foxglove, I won't die. If my horse eats them, she will. I can't believe there are so many gullible people that trust the testing of chemicals, toxins etc intended for human use on animals.  |
I do do my homework. Sticking with your point... cell, corneal and skin tissue cultures, these solely and exlusively come from volunteer human donors? And what garantees are there that if these tissues react well, that it won't cause a problem elsewhere?
As was on here the other day, scientists are trying to 'cure' Down's syndrome babies. A worthwhile pursuit, I think. They are inducing Down's syndrome in other animals, to help understand how to cure it. How on earth can you cure Down's syndrome without animal experimentation? You just can't By the looks of it, what you are arguing for, will lead to more Thalidomide clones, where testing on animals was rushed, or just plain missed/faked. If Thalidomide was testing conclusively on animals, then we wouldn't have Thalidomide babies.