Quote:
|
Originally Posted by orangebird
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?
|
Nice dodge on the Down's syndrom point
There are never any garantees, but a damn sight more than inventing some random chemical and giving it to a human with absolutely no human testing at all. Maybe you should do your homework. Testing kills many, many animals before they find a mixture that is tolerable to humans. How many live human test subjects would we have if we abolished all testing on animals? Not many i'd suspect. We only have a few as it is, and that's only after we show them assurance and evidence, that the drug won't adversely affect them.
Quote:
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? 
|
What, pray tell, was my ridiculous suggestion? That all medication should be thoroughly tested on animals before being license on humans? Yeah, totally ridiculous. Thalidomide was an example of what happened with partial animal testing, can you imagine what it would be like if nothing was tested on animals?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sorry, some people have more important things to worry about than bloody bubble bath, or anti-wrinkle cream. Like curing Down's syndrome.
Quote:
|
There are plenty of other ways to test. By pharmaceuticals do not want to spend the money researching and developing them. End of.
|
Let's just pretend your version of the world is correct and it is simply a case of money (which I proven, it isn't). If drug development cost 3 times as much, or more likely 20 times as much by eradicating animal testing, you'd think we'd get anywhere near the amount of drugs available? Not by a damn shot. You can forget about anti-HIV/AIDS drugs for the 3rd world right away. Solely testing on humans and synthetic tissue is not an option (see next paragraph), let alone not viable.
Quote:
|
Not testing on animals DOES NOT mean that humans have to queue up to have substances squirted in their eyes. Scientists mamaged to create a whole frigging sheep and grow a human ear on a mouse FFS. Whats stopping the pharamaceuticals from running similar studies and tests to create human tissue to test on?????????????
|
Great, so cloning is more ethical than animal research? Like I said, if you'd do your homework, you'd know its not just tissues that are important here, its how a body reacts as a whole. You think we could see what Thalidomide did to babies by testing on skin tissue? If a drug caused schitzophrenia/dillusional behavior, you'd see that testing on tissue would you? Heart attacks? You'd see that on skin tissue as well would you? Humans share 95% DNA with rats. Our body is very smiliar to most other mamals, particularly for curing diseases. Animal testing works, that's why they do it.
Testing on anirmals isn't nice, I wish it didn't have to be done (honestly) but its a necessary evil.