Five held in grave theft inquiry

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by punky

Not good enough for me. I assume that you have never had medical treatment, and will refuse any medication or invasive hospital treatment that you might require in the future?

Sorry, I wasn't aware my ethics and subsequent actions were up for your verification...

I do everything I can and obtain all the knowledge within my grasp to make sure I have no part of animal testing. The only medicatio I have is the contraceptive pill, which I know is produced by a pharmaceutical company who do not test on animals.

Not only do I condem the terrorists behind this, I condemn there cause. While I think its wrong to be in the furious persuit of elixir of life, to prevent HLS, and that Oxford University research laboratory from giving young, otherwise healthy, people, and children the chance to leave fulfilling and enriching lives is grotesque.

There are PLENTY of other ways to test - but the companies don't want the extra costs.
__________________

Originally Posted by Bifta

What do these companies like the Body Shop test their products on? Humans?

Don't know, I don't shop there.

[me283]

Originally Posted by orangebird

There are PLENTY of other ways to test - but the companies don't want the extra costs.

It's more likely the pharmaceutical companies that don't want the cost, not the likes of this poor family who have had to put up with so much. Surely the protest should be against them?

Ethics are all very well, but where is the line drawn? Do these protestors think that animal testing (where at least some people see a tangible benefit) is wrong, but Hala butchers go untroubled? Do they attack people who wear sheepskin jackets? Do they firebomb factories that make shoes from leather? Do they attack anyone who uses a toothpaste that is made by a company who produce products tested on animals?

Or do they just dig up random bodies, knowing that it's probable that somewhere there will be a link with someone who has done something they don't agree with?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Don't know, I don't shop there.

That's why I said "companies like", how do the companies you purchase from test their products?

[Ramrod]

Timeline of this sorry saga......
__________________

It seems that all the extremists are doing is forcing research with animals to be transferred abroad to countries with slacker laws regarding such research......bit of an own goal really.
link

[me283]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Timeline of this sorry saga......

Yes, I suppose you could say they were "a little extreme"...

[punky]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I do everything I can and obtain all the knowledge within my grasp to make sure I have no part of animal testing. The only medicatio I have is the contraceptive pill, which I know is produced by a pharmaceutical company who do not test on animals.

There is no medication worth a damn that wasn't tested on animals at some point. Its a key step before it gets approved for testing on humans, and then approved for general use. Some may have been 40 years ago or more, but they still were.

Anyway, push come to shove, if your life, of the lives of your family and possible future children depended on it, your stance on this would go out the window.

There are PLENTY of other ways to test - but the companies don't want the extra costs.

Not really. Theory and computer simulations are all well and good, but you can never garantee that it would be safe, let alone work. The only way you can do that is with live animal testing. There are not enough humans available to test all the cures and medical procedures that we are persuing.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Bifta

What do these companies like the Body Shop test their products on? Humans?

Unfortunately you picked the wrong company to hold up as an example. The Body Shop prides itself on "never" having tested on animals (only the human variety), unlike Boots for example.

Originally Posted by me283

Yes, sadly it did work.

Which means they will do more of it and raise the stakes higher...

[me283]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Which means they will do more of it and raise the stakes higher...

It also means that the bullies won.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Angua

Unfortunately you picked the wrong company to hold up as an example. The Body Shop prides itself on "never" having tested on animals (only the human variety), unlike Boots for example.

Is that testing of the final product as a whole, or testing of every single ingredient in the final product?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by punky

There is no medication worth a damn that wasn't tested on animals at some point. Its a key step before it gets approved for testing on humans, and then approved for general use. Some may have been 40 years ago or more, but they still were.

Anyway, push come to shove, if your life, of the lives of your family and possible future children depended on it, your stance on this would go out the window.



Not really. Theory and computer simulations are all well and good, but you can never garantee that it would be safe, let alone work. The only way you can do that is with live animal testing. There are not enough humans available to test all the cures and medical procedures that we are persuing.

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.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Is that testing of the final product as a whole, or testing of every single ingredient in the final product?

Given the sources for most of the products I would say probably no part ever.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Is that testing of the final product as a whole, or testing of every single ingredient in the final product?

All Tescos own brands claim that neither the ingredients or the final products are tested on animals.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Bifta

What do these companies like the Body Shop test their products on? Humans?

No, Animals.

Originally Posted by Body Shop International

We operate a strict purchasing rule (view more) that ensures that we don't buy any ingredient that has been animal tested for cosmetic purposes by our suppliers since 31 December 1990.

http://www.thebodyshopinternational....at_believe.jsp

[punky]

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.