Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
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?
|
Erm, I'd trust the test on human skin rather than rabbits skin.... I really don't get why people think because a little drop of something didn't burn a rabbits eye out that it won't burn a humans out...
Quote:
|
As was on here the other day, scientists are trying to 'cure' Down's syndrome babies. A worthwhile persuit, I think. They are inducing Doiwn's syndrom e in other animals, to help understand how to cure it. How on earth can you cure Down's syndrome without animal experimentation.
|
How does anyone manage to conclusively state that some chemical/product didn't make a guinea pig sick, so it won't make me sick?
Quote:
|
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.
|
No I am not arguing for that and frankly, that's a ridiuclous suggestion.
And by the by, why would there ever be a case of someone
faking an animal test?
The Body Shop have been selling products (and the ingredients in them) for 15 years that have not been tested on animals. Yet I haven't seen a single bit of bad press about a product reating badly with a human.
There are plenty of other ways to test. By pharmaceuticals do not want to spend the money researching and developing them. End of.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Nice.....  |
Nicer than this.