Russian Severed Dog Heads

[DarkSide]

Depending on your veiws this blog may or may not be as morbid as you believe.

Anyways, to clear things up at the very beginning, I am not religious. More of a preservationist, and a darwinist. I don't think the idea of a higher power is out of the question, just that it seems to be improbable. I'm not here to discuss that.

Moving on, I recently went to see a movie, where one of the major plot devices was based on scientific experiments performed by Russian scientist Vladmir Demikhov. If you've seen the movie you should know which i'm talking about, please, if you comment don't mention the movie, as I don't want anyone who hasn't seen and plans to to have it ruined for them.

Anyways, on to the experiments. I watched the videos on Youtube. which you can see *snip* and *snip* (beware these links are graphic, and not recommended for youth. You may need a youtube account to watch one or either). Personally I think what he did was amazing. The prospects of living severed heads, and graffting heads onto another body is amazing. I don't have anything against dogs, or anything (I have two myself), and neither do I condone these experiments by untrained professionals.

Anyways. Scientifically these experiements paved the way for so many medical applications now-a-days; including heart transplants, brain transplants, and even that recent face transplant. Those kinds of operations would not have been possible without these previous experiments.

Now, if you look at some of the comments on the attached Youtube videos there are dozens saying things like "This is cruel and unneccesary", "They should burn in hell because they tried to play the part of God", and "They didn't need to do these kinda things, people should live out their natural lives".

Sure you say those kinds of things now, but think if you were one of the 910,000 Americans that die from heart disease every year. You could just y'know. die. Or you could get a heart transplant. Oh whoooooops. There are none available, because the research was too immoral to perform on a dog, so especially not a human! And really who is to say that they are playing the part of God, when there isn't even proof of God to begin with.

Another common comment was "How can this even be useful when dogs and humans are so different?", this can easily be answered, as Demikhov's research inspired and lead Dr. Robert White (an American, so you can't say these kinds of experiments arn't performed around here), to perform head transplants on monkeys, which we all know are close analogs to the human body. As a supplement, there is now a ban on the testing of Great Apes (Ironically Britain, and the United States do not follow this policy).

On a side note, another horrible experiment that brought justice to the eniter world, and has saved many lives was founded during. Buh buh buh. World War II, by none other than the Nazi Party. During the holocaust, hundreds of concentration camp inmates were dunked into freezing ice water, too see how the body reacts, many test subjects died, but in the process we now know how the body reacts to, and how to stop hypothermia. Which we probably wouldn't be able to learn in any otehr way.

Opinions?

This is the entry for my newest blog. I just wanted to post it, as it is technically my beliefs, I would also like to see other members beliefs and opinions on what I said, or the experiment in general. If you'd like to attack me personally please do so in a PM or as a comment on my blog as it is also your opinion and I'd like to hear it however negative it is.

Thank you.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Paranoid Android
this is a family-oriented site, please remember that

[Belle.]

I personally find medical experiments conducted on non-consenting beings abhorrent. The ends do not justify the means IMO. Ill gotten gains.

Perhaps medicine wouldn't move as fast as it has without experimentation on animals and in the past, non-consenting adults, but I don't really care. It is like saying, gee without slavery my crops won't get sowed as fast - so won't ya let me keep them???

Yes lots of Americans die of heart disease.....but the majority of those are caused by them being too fat and living unhealthy lifestyles.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Belle.

[DarkSide]

Sorry, but I don't really see Medicinal practises as being comparable towards slavery.

How else would you suggest this kind of research gets done? Who would volunteer to have these kinds of procedures done when there is a risk of death?

And when you bring up a large amount of americans being fat. Its true, but what about people who heriditarily have heart disease, there would be no way to get rid of their illness immediately, and on top of that, you say its abhorrent, but you think its moral to allow obese Americans to die because of their own life choices?

On top of that. If you think those kind of treatments should not be performed on Animals, you might as well become a vegetarian if you're not already. Atleast the animals in these experiments get euthanized and get anethstetics. If you have a spare 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours go on Youtube and watch the documentary "Earthlings". Then you'll realize there is more to worry about in your foods processing then in animal testing.

Edited July 29, 2008 by DarkSide

[Belle.]

Sorry, but I don't really see Medicinal practises as being comparable towards slavery.

Lol we are not simply talking about "Medicinal practices' we are discussing the pain and torture (exploitation of the powerless) to benefit the powerful.

How else would you suggest this kind of research gets done? Who would volunteer to have these kinds of procedures done when there is a risk of death?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1781970

Look at this link above which is a scientific study funded by the NHS : Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review.

Half of the animal experiments failed to predict what happened in humans??!?? As successful as the toss of a coin.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/home/index.cfm?...5e-1d0ba132a7b8

As a neurologist and public health specialist, I know that experiments on animals are not predictive of how drugs or other treatments will work within the human system, and they aren't an effective way to study human disease. In addition, non-human animals can suffer immense physical pain and psychological trauma as a result of experiments performed on them and life in the laboratory.

A recent review of scientific documents showed profound, sustained increases in blood corticosterone, blood pressure, and other stress measures in animals subjected to or witnessing routine laboratory procedures such as bleeding and forced-feeding. These stress markers do not even include what happens to animals when they are forced to undergo painful procedures or are injected with or forced to inhale toxic substances.

Animal experiments have never been validated as an effective means to study human disease. If animal experiments were put through the same rigorous testing required of new research techniques, most would fail. Animal experiments have also been known to mislead researchers. For example, the use of penicillin was delayed for years because Alexander Fleming's initial test on a rabbit was unsuccessful. Penicillin is lethal in hamsters and causes cancer in rats. It would not be approved today for human testing based on current guidelines that rely on animal tests.

Because of FDA regulations, all medications are tested in animals. However, this does not ensure these new drugs will be safe and effective in people. Animal testing is random and unreliable--and much less accurate than the toss of a coin. According to the FDA's own statistics, more than 90 percent of all drugs that test safe and effective in animals fail during human testing, and half of the few that are approved are later relabeled or withdrawn for serious adverse effects not seen in animal tests. Vioxx killed thousands of people, yet it was absolutely safe in animal tests. Vioxx is just one example of the many drugs that passed animal tests but caused serious harm to people.

The primate models for HIV have been one of the most spectacular and complete failures in medical research. HIV drugs have been tested accurately in cultures of human HIV cells, and animal tests are not necessary. More than 80 HIV vaccines have been successful in primates, and every one has failed when tested in humans. The recent Merck vaccine (which was tested in animals) was the most advanced and most hyped HIV vaccine in years, yet it appears to have actually increased the risk for HIV infection when tested in people.

Regulations for animal research facilities are weak at best. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) are supposed to carefully review applications and ensure compliance with animal welfare regulations, but the committees are frequently dominated by animal researchers or other employees of research facilities. As a result of this conflict of interest, IACUCs often fail to provide animals with even basic protections. Researchers proposing experiments causing pain or distress are required by law to search for viable non-animal alternatives. But time and time again, IACUCs approve invasive experiments even though the researcher has done little or no work to search for an alternative.

The only federal law that applies to animals used for research--the Animal Welfare Act--is, for all intents and purposes, a husbandry statute that regulates the size of cages, cleanliness standards, provision of food and water, etc., for only a small fraction of the animals used in research. Rats, mice, birds (who combined make up about 90 percent of all animals used in research), cold-blooded animals, and animals commonly used for food are excluded from the definition of "animal" under the Act and are therefore not given even these minimal protections.

A major shift in our research paradigm is long overdue. A move away from animal experiments toward more accurate methods of studying disease would be ethically and scientifically superior.

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H.

Senior Medical and Research Advisor

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

5100 Wisconsin Ave. N.W., Suite 400

Washington D.C. 20016

202-686-2210, ext. 379

aakhtar@pcrm.org

And when you bring up a large amount of americans being fat. Its true, but what about people who heriditarily have heart disease, there would be no way to get rid of their illness immediately, and on top of that, you say its abhorrent, but you think its moral to allow obese Americans to die because of their own life choices?

Huh? I am not advocating people with lung cancer through smoking are left to die at home, nor fat Americans having restricted medical care. I am alluding to the fact that instead people should be encouraged by public education initiatives to have a healthier lifestyle - therefore these masses of people you talk about, wouldn't need these types of medical treatments in the first place. And yes there are viable alternatives to animal experimentation, just google it.

On top of that. If you think those kind of treatments should not be performed on Animals, you might as well become a vegetarian if you're not already. Atleast the animals in these experiments get euthanized and get anethstetics. If you have a spare 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours go on Youtube and watch the documentary "Earthlings". Then you'll realize there is more to worry about in your foods processing then in animal testing.

I am vegan, so don't worry - my position is rather consistent upon these issues.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Belle.

[Omnaka]

The Nazi experiments were an afront against man, very sick and twisted , we would have found out about the effects Of freezing Peoples heads in Ice til their eyeballs and Brain poped with out Ift being Forced on another. People die of freezing all the time, no need to force it, Justifying any form of torture IMO is sick as Hitlers dream of an arien race,

Disgusting and unnessesary.

Do you Really think this was a Good thing, and needed to help learn the ways , or reactions Of the human Body twards cold?

I don't think the animals should be tortured either. It is a sick buisness, but science can Justify Just about anything.

Love Omnaka

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Good post Belle. .you beat me to it.

I find the usage of creatures viewed to be "less" than us disgusting. I'm sure we wouldn't like it if something came along and started doing experiments on us because we were viewed, to them, to be "just animals". Maybe the tune would change a little if we experienced the same fear and longing to survive that experimental animals feel. People justify these things by saying "Oh, they're just animals."

And that, in my opinion, is sad.

Not saying that I want to hinder science. . .but I believe, if we are as intelligent as we like to believe. . .we can find another way to do this that doesn't include exploiting those that can't defend themselves. As Belle said, the majority of animal testing is useless. . .The price, however (in my opinion), will always far outweigh the gain. . .regardless of whether it was useful or not.

Stem cells can be used to help medical science, but you see the stir that was caused by that? We are more willing to inflict pain on a living, breathing creature that still feels, than to use something that will never live. That, to me, makes humans sound a bit sadistic.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Sweetsalem82103

[XITSALLGOODX]

lol i find this video really funny

and i would condone it even by todays standards

why would i do that i hear you ask??

becuase its a animal and i dont care

i also consider humans animals

[Cimber]

If you honestly think animals are in immense pain or being tortured, you are seriously out of the loop. I go through this with mice and dogs in cancer research and none of the ones at any labs I visited on the East Coast were under any kind of torture or immense pain. There is currently no alternative to animal research or else I would have forced the lab to use it. There are complementary methods but they by no means can be used as an alternative.What would you have us do, halt all animal research and release vaccines and other drugs that will certainly kill much of the population, not only due to the drug itself but due to the illness, infection, or virus that the drug was supposed to prevent? Thats right, you can thank nearly every medical advancement in the last 100 years to research that has been done on animals. We wouldn't have advanced otherwise.

Its ludicrous to think that animal research is not valuable to the medical field. Its also ludicrous to be an armchair critic saying "Animal research is torture and we should use other methods" when you have no idea how useful these other methods are and haven't experienced first hand how little animals suffer in research conditions.

Animal Research has saved BILLIONS of lives. People against animal research are against causing 'harm' to animals. If this was the case, you should be for animal research. Why you ask? Because thats precisely what animal research is used for. To prevent harm to all animals (which includes humans). Have you seemingly forgot the harm viruses, infections, and other ailments cause to animals? To prevent this harm, you need to research on animals to make sure the drugs you are using are safe. There is no other way to go about it at this point in time.

People justify these things by saying "Oh, they're just animals."

No they don't. Its as simple as that.

Not saying that I want to hinder science. . .but I believe, if we are as intelligent as we like to believe. . .we can find another way to do this that doesn't include exploiting those that can't defend themselves. As Belle said, the majority of animal testing is useless. . .The price, however (in my opinion), will always far outweigh the gain. . .regardless of whether it was useful or not.

What do you think we are doing now? As I said above, would you prefer us to halt all research and let disease run rampant until we find an alternative? Because hindering science is exactly what you will be doing if you want to halt animal research and wait around to find an alternative. You need to do both, save lives and find alternatives.

You don't think I was hesitant when I first had to experience animal research? I almost lost my first job because I refused to do it. Its not until you experience it first hand and realize that information being propagated around are either direct lies or gross overstatements of what is exactly happen.

A major shift in our research paradigm is long overdue. A move away from animal experiments toward more accurate methods of studying disease would be ethically and scientifically superior.

Which is exactly what is happening. But people must realize that is also wrong to indirectly kill billions of animals by not doing any effective research at all to prevent disease. Thats exactly what you will be doing by using methods that are meant to be complementary and not alternatives.

If this post hits you as a bit harsh, I apologize.

[DarkSide]

Belle as you can see my posts are referring closer to operations, while you are discusing vaccines. Which is the most important factor there could be.

Sure "cures" could be tested in clinical sessions, but nowhere on that first link does it say anything about clinical transplant surgery trials.

So basically that whole point you made was a waste and doesn't really counter anything i've said.

The Nazi experiments were an afront against man, very sick and twisted , we would have found out about the effects Of freezing Peoples heads in Ice til their eyeballs and Brain poped with out Ift being Forced on another. People die of freezing all the time, no need to force it, Justifying any form of torture IMO is sick as Hitlers dream of an arien race,

Can you prove that, because of all the Nazi documentaries i've watched, they've never said anything about "Freezing heads". I've seen their ice dunks and its literally a bathtub. Also there is no reason eyeballs would pop out from cold water.

Also people die, yes. But you still wouldn't know what appened to the body, you wouldn't know which organs give out first, and you wouldn't be able to know how long it took. And how would you feel if you were trapped on a lake dying from ice water, and while saving you scientists are testing your body.

And i'm not justifying torture. I am justifying the research that came from it.

[Omnaka]

Belle as you can see my posts are referring closer to operations, while you are discusing vaccines. Which is the most important factor there could be.

Sure "cures" could be tested in clinical sessions, but nowhere on that first link does it say anything about clinical transplant surgery trials.

So basically that whole point you made was a waste and doesn't really counter anything i've said.

Can you prove that, because of all the Nazi documentaries i've watched, they've never said anything about "Freezing heads". I've seen their ice dunks and its literally a bathtub. Also there is no reason eyeballs would pop out from cold water.

Also people die, yes. But you still wouldn't know what appened to the body, you wouldn't know which organs give out first, and you wouldn't be able to know how long it took. And how would you feel if you were trapped on a lake dying from ice water, and while saving you scientists are testing your body.

And i'm not justifying torture. I am justifying the research that came from it.

From your op it sure sounds like you are Justifying The Horror Of The Nazi experiments, If Hurting People Is Justification for Mans enlightenment, I would rather ride a horse to work, or dip candles and chop wood, I'll leave you to justify Hurting animals and Humans, so you can know the effects of your torture. I already know.

Your Way is not My way, and Iam Glad!

I hunt For food and bless my bullets , arrows, Knife and the animals spirit , Thanking it and God For a clean painless kill, and Nourishing My Familys body, I don't do it for sport or to see the results of Pain inflicted.

On this note The Us Govmt Infected Black Males in the 50s and 60s with VD, Then gave them placebose to help them , while the scientist watched the deteriation and Pain of the infected. THey gave radioactive Milk to Children with Downs syndrome and othjer babies who were deemed not normal, All in the name of Your Kind Of science , which the ends Justify the means, What a horible thing to do to your brother so you can live longer. Selfish and vain IMo.

Love Omnaka

PS, My Pop Pop , and bubba were in a concentration Camp, I don't need a video to Help me Believe this was good for humanity, I don't need to watch a Video, to know how sick and twisted the brothers and sisters who purpatrated these crimes against humanity are.

Now history is repeating This same Farce In the name Of science Imo NOT GOOD! O-

Edited July 30, 2008 by Omnaka

[will_1835]

Yikes! I thought testing eyeliner on rabbits was bad.....

[shadowlark]

If you honestly think animals are in immense pain or being tortured, you are seriously out of the loop.

I think if you think the animals here aren't in immense pain you're the one who is seriously out of the loop.

[Omnaka]

I think if you think the animals here aren't in immense pain you're the one who is seriously out of the loop.

Yup, Ever heard a lobster Scream, Or a dog yelp from being Kicked,

Real science has even showed emotion in Plants.

Everything in the physical world has a Conscious spirit, which is capeable of feeling, It does make one wonder if the Scientist, doing these great feets of science Have one though.

I know they do, Just sad IMO.

Love Omnaka

[Cimber]

I think if you think the animals here aren't in immense pain you're the one who is seriously out of the loop.

Sure, calling the guy that is directly involved in animal research 'out of the loop'. You seriously have no idea how scientific research is conducted.

PETA? Oh, you mean the organization whose members said the following...

"We feel that animals have the same rights as *******ed children."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"If it were a *******ed baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."

-Tom Regan,

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

-Alex Pacheco

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA

PETA is a radical group that cares about animals (with the exception of humans). The animal liberation front bombs labs and destroys research that can save millions of lives.

You can kiss all the drugs that kept you alive today goodbye. Whether you like it or not I guarantee everyone here as reaped the benefits that came from animal research, and yet it is easy for you to sit back and complain about how wrong it is when you've never even experienced it first hand.

The propaganda videos and speeches PETA puts out are garbage and utter nonsense. Want to play the video game? Lets see what our good friends Penn and Teller and their interviewees have to say (warning cusswords used many times)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

Maybe I should make a video of what the world would look like if PETA had their way. People dead in the streets because influenza wiped out most of the worldwide population since we couldn't research a new vaccine. Or perhaps a vaccine that was sent out without being tested that just happened to kill everyone that was injected with it. What a wonderful future PETA has in store for us.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Cimber

[shadowlark]

Sure, calling the guy that is directly involved in animal research 'out of the loop'. You seriously have no idea how scientific research is conducted.

PETA? Oh, you mean the organization whose members said the following...

"We feel that animals have the same rights as *******ed children."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"If it were a *******ed baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."

-Tom Regan,

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

-Alex Pacheco

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA

PETA is a radical group that cares about animals (with the exception of humans). The animal liberation front bombs labs and destroys research that can save millions of lives.

You can kiss all the drugs that kept you alive today goodbye. Whether you like it or not I guarantee everyone here as reaped the benefits that came from animal research, and yet it is easy for you to sit back and complain about how wrong it is when you've never even experienced it first hand.

The propaganda videos and speeches PETA puts out are garbage and utter nonsense. Want to play the video game? Lets see what our good friends Penn and Teller and their interviewees have to say (warning cusswords used many times)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

Maybe I should make a video of what the world would look like if PETA had their way. People dead in the streets because influenza wiped out most of the worldwide population since we couldn't research a new vaccine. Or perhaps a vaccine that was sent out without being tested that just happened to kill everyone that was injected with it. What a wonderful future PETA has in store for us.

I'm actually not a supporter of PETA or ALF. I agree that they're radical groups and think that some of their words and actions have been wrong. But the fact is, the animals in the video do NOT look like they're having a very good time. Your original post implied that animals used in research are not in immense pain or tortured, and this video clearly shows they are. Yes, some of the footage might be outdated, but I highly doubt that every lab that uses animals is treating them humanely in 2008. Do I like animals being used in research? No. Can I think of an alternative that would be beneficial to both humans and animals? Unfortunately, no.

[Omnaka]

Sure, calling the guy that is directly involved in animal research 'out of the loop'. You seriously have no idea how scientific research is conducted.

PETA? Oh, you mean the organization whose members said the following...

"We feel that animals have the same rights as *******ed children."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"If it were a *******ed baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog."

-Tom Regan,

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

-Alex Pacheco

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA

PETA is a radical group that cares about animals (with the exception of humans). The animal liberation front bombs labs and destroys research that can save millions of lives.

You can kiss all the drugs that kept you alive today goodbye. Whether you like it or not I guarantee everyone here as reaped the benefits that came from animal research, and yet it is easy for you to sit back and complain about how wrong it is when you've never even experienced it first hand.

The propaganda videos and speeches PETA puts out are garbage and utter nonsense. Want to play the video game? Lets see what our good friends Penn and Teller and their interviewees have to say (warning cusswords used many times)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

Maybe I should make a video of what the world would look like if PETA had their way. People dead in the streets because influenza wiped out most of the worldwide population since we couldn't research a new vaccine. Or perhaps a vaccine that was sent out without being tested that just happened to kill everyone that was injected with it. What a wonderful future PETA has in store for us.

I guess that If you actually Knew that spirit was eternal, and pure consciousness, and that you could come back as your spirit need, then you would not put so much importance on hurting your eternal spirit brother So you could live Longer. Because You know not , It is understandable , but still Disgusting IMO

This science You speak of does not draw the line at animals, as I pointed out in My other post. It is a Gateway to Experimenting On Humans, Sometimes unbeknownst to them, To help who, THe homless who can not pay for the drugs you Helped create using Them for tests, because they cant afford to eat, Who does this testing benifit besides a bunch of money loving People who care not what is being done to their bro in the name of their vanity , and mortality?

Yes I would much rather Die than torture another in the name of Scienc,

This mortal existance Can be disgusting when looked at as a reason to hurt others , So one can Live.

Love Omnaka

[Omnaka]

I'm actually not a supporter of PETA or ALF. I agree that they're radical groups and think that some of their words and actions have been wrong. But the fact is, the animals in the video do NOT look like they're having a very good time. Your original post implied that animals used in research are not in immense pain or tortured, and this video clearly shows they are. Yes, some of the footage might be outdated, but I highly doubt that every lab that uses animals is treating them humanely in 2008. Do I like animals being used in research? No. Can I think of an alternative that would be beneficial to both humans and animals? Unfortunately, no.

I have a solution, Let those with the money, Vanity and illness be The willing guinea pig, Helping Mankind through their contribution, Instead of doing it under the table and many times against anothers will.

I think there are enough dying That it might just net some results, although Death might not agree with the Vain Narcisist who feels the need to Prolong His life, at the expense of others.

Love Omnaka

[WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT]

God gave us dominion over the animals...Not abuse of them...

Thats all I have to say. Couldnt even look at the video.... puke!

God bless their little souls .... Bad people.....Bad people!

[Cimber]

I'm actually not a supporter of PETA or ALF. I agree that they're radical groups and think that some of their words and actions have been wrong. But the fact is, the animals in the video do NOT look like they're having a very good time. Your original post implied that animals used in research are not in immense pain or tortured, and this video clearly shows they are. Yes, some of the footage might be outdated, but I highly doubt that every lab that uses animals is treating them humanely in 2008. Do I like animals being used in research? No. Can I think of an alternative that would be beneficial to both humans and animals? Unfortunately, no.

Animals are not in immense pain and are not tortured when it comes to medical animal research. I know first hand as I am involved with cancer research. Tons of precautions are taken and it is illegal to treat animals poorly. According to the USDA, 7% of animals do not receive pain killers under research. Of these 7% the utmost care is taken to avoid pain in animals as much as possible. The reason that they can't take painkillers is due to the fact that it will interfere with research data gathered. 93% of animals in research receive pain killers or only get momentary pain due to an injection, in which case the rest of their time being tested is pain free.

I highly doubt that every lab that uses animals is treating them humanely in 2008.

They have to or else they wouldn't be conducting research. Animal Care Committees are required to make sure of this in every lab that conducts animal research.

[DarkSide]

I never once said, I didn't think the animals were in pain.

@Omnaka: That is the most selfish thing i've ever heard. What if you were sick, or a loved one. Oh well, looks like they'll have to go through this new procedure, which may not work and is potentially life threatening.

Also it depends on where you live buddy. Health care is more or less free for the Homeless people in Canada and most of Europe. If you have a problem with your health care system blame it on your government not science.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Personally... I believe, that no benefit to humans justifies ruining another creatures life. Sorry. . .I can't see it any other way. I believe killing any animal for anything besides food is wrong. And even THAT is on the border because of how the animals are treated in the process. People have lost respect for their food source because they can easily go to the grocery store and pick up a pack of meat without having to see where it comes from or how it gets there.

Its just the question. . .would YOU like to be in that situation? Would you like to be robbed at birth of living a normal and natural life? And I'm sorry, but I HAVE heard the argument, "Oh they're just animals." And "Just animals" can have lives too. . .and they can NOT like whats being done to them. . .if they had a choice, do you think they'd rather be free or be the subject of experiments? And, like I said before, look at the whole stem cell debate. I still don't understand why its ok for tests to be done on living creatures, yet its taboo to do it on something that will never live. . .

I don't believe we have the right to take the other inhabitants of this earth and use them to further our own development. And, there is so much controversy over vaccines anyways. . .and, I have HEARD the stories of what happens in some of the labs that work on vaccines from people that have worked there. . .so your post is no comfort to me. sorry

As for vaccines. . .

The most fundamental problem with using macaques in vaccine research is the fact that they have different immune systems to humans. This means they can be infected with SIV, or an SIV-HIV combination (‘chimeric’ virus) known as SHIV, but not with HIV-1 (although they are susceptible to certain strains of HIV-2). A drug or vaccine that is effective in Rhesus monkeys infected with SIV or SHIV may not therefore be effective in humans with HIV. Conversely, a drug or vaccine that may be effective in an HIV positive human may be dropped because it appears ineffective in animals. Indeed, no HIV vaccine has yet been developed, despite many years of animal involvement.

HIV testing in animals

and heres a few more things I found on that website that I thought were interesting. . .even though they were on the "Against" side of the argument, they are still good points.

Studies have suggested that ‘micro-dosing’ (where only a tiny amount of a product is given to a human through the skin) could be a new and very effective alternative to animal experiments 5. The recent news that scientists have grown a small piece of human liver tissue from stem cells could also mean that it may one day be possible to perform initial 'human' safety trials in a lab.

Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.

And. . .that's from a website that doesn't have very much to do with the argument of animal testing. . its a website about HIV/AIDS

Then there's also. . .

As of 2004 82% of general practitioners believed that animal testing can be misleading.

Not to mention the fact that SEVERAL examples where animal research has actually delayed medical advances because. . .regardless of how hard you try to make an animal get a human illness (through genetic manipulation, surgery, or whatever else), it does not mean that the animal's immune system will respond the same way.

Taking into account the crucial genetic, molecular, immunologic and cellular differences

between humans and other animals, unwarranted focus on animal models may prevent

progress in many important medical research areas. Animal models are extensively used in

research on cancer, AIDS, psychology/drug abuse and genetic diseases. However the

contribution of animal models to these disciplines can be disputed.

source

[Cimber]

Personally... I believe, that no benefit to humans justifies ruining another creatures life. Sorry. . .I can't see it any other way. I believe killing any animal for anything besides food is wrong. And even THAT is on the border because of how the animals are treated in the process. People have lost respect for their food source because they can easily go to the grocery store and pick up a pack of meat without having to see where it comes from or how it gets there.

Its just the question. . .would YOU like to be in that situation? Would you like to be robbed at birth of living a normal and natural life? And I'm sorry, but I HAVE heard the argument, "Oh they're just animals." And "Just animals" can have lives too. . .and they can NOT like whats being done to them. . .if they had a choice, do you think they'd rather be free or be the subject of experiments? And, like I said before, look at the whole stem cell debate. I still don't understand why its ok for tests to be done on living creatures, yet its taboo to do it on something that will never live. . .

I don't believe we have the right to take the other inhabitants of this earth and use them to further our own development. And, there is so much controversy over vaccines anyways. . .and, I have HEARD the stories of what happens in some of the labs that work on vaccines from people that have worked there. . .so your post is no comfort to me. sorry hmm.gif

As for vaccines. . .

QUOTE

The most fundamental problem with using macaques in vaccine research is the fact that they have different immune systems to humans. This means they can be infected with SIV, or an SIV-HIV combination (‘chimeric’ virus) known as SHIV, but not with HIV-1 (although they are susceptible to certain strains of HIV-2). A drug or vaccine that is effective in Rhesus monkeys infected with SIV

or SHIV may not therefore be effective in humans with HIV. Conversely, a drug or vaccine that may be effective in an HIV positive human may be dropped because it appears ineffective in animals. Indeed, no HIV vaccine has yet been developed, despite many years of animal involvement.

HIV testing in animals

and heres a few more things I found on that website that I thought were interesting. . .even though they were on the "Against" side of the argument, they are still good points.

QUOTE

Studies have suggested that ‘micro-dosing’ (where only a tiny amount of a product is given to a human through the skin) could be a new and very effective alternative to animal experiments 5. The recent news that scientists have grown a small piece of human liver tissue from stem cells could also mean that it may one day be possible to perform initial 'human' safety trials in a lab.

QUOTE

Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.

And. . .that's from a website that doesn't have very much to do with the argument of animal testing. . its a website about HIV/AIDS

Then there's also. . .

As of 2004 82% of general practitioners believed that animal testing can be misleading.

Not to mention the fact that SEVERAL examples where animal research has actually delayed medical advances because. . .regardless of how hard you try to make an animal get a human illness (through genetic manipulation, surgery, or whatever else), it does not mean that the animal's immune system will respond the same way.

QUOTE

Taking into account the crucial genetic, molecular, immunologic and cellular differences

between humans and other animals, unwarranted focus on animal models may prevent

progress in many important medical research areas. Animal models are extensively used in

research on cancer, AIDS, psychology/drug abuse and genetic diseases. However the

contribution of animal models to these disciplines can be disputed.

source

I guess you would prefer to release drugs that have not been tested and seemingly kill untold amounts of people because we have no way of testing whether they are safe or not? Have you forgotten that the thousands upon thousands of different kinds of drugs in circulation are overwhelmingly safe for those prescribed it, precisely due to animal research?

Your whole argument falls apart because you completely skip over a very important aspect of medical biology. That is viral evolution.

Have you forgotten the fact that without animal research, countless numbers of people and other animals will die due to the strength and resistance gained by the flu and other viruses due to the evolutionary arms race that has been going on for years? Without animal research, life as we know it would be wiped out due to the flu, if not other viruses. Are you really concerned about saving animals lives? Because if you truly are, then you would support animal research to ensure animals lives could be saved and species could continue to be around for years to come.

Thats not to mention bacterial infections, which have gotten so resistant that many of our antibiotics no longer work.

[Cimber]

You also mentioned...

I believe killing any animal for anything besides food is wrong.

You said that you believe killing any animal for anything besides food is wrong?. Are you completely unaware of the fact that animals go through pain when they are being eaten in the wild? Animals eat to survive and many eat meat. How is eating meat to survive and having animals undergo research procedures to survive any different? The answer (in case you haven't figured it out) is that ALL animals experience pain when being eatin alive or killed in the wild while 7% experience minimal pain (while staying in a comfortable environment) when undergoing research procedures.

And even THAT is on the border because of how the animals are treated in the process.

So omnivores like bears, pigs, chickens, dogs, raccoons, skunks, and so on are borderline wrong for eating animals, since the animals that are being eatin experience pain when their limbs are being ripped apart and guts spilled on the ground while they are still alive (if they are alive by that point)?

Edited July 30, 2008 by Cimber

[DarkSide]

Many leading agencies and organizations estimate that 10 million dogs/cats enter shelters each year. 10 million, each year. 7 million of them are not placed with anyone and therefore are killed. 7 million, ear year. A genocide occurs each year in the US with dogs and cats.

This also makes vetrinarians and pet owners "borderline wrong"

In your opinion it seems, they should let these animals go into the wild, or die on the streets naturally, they have no reason to put them down other than being strays. Look at what feral rabbits and cats have done to Australia and NewZealand.

Edited July 30, 2008 by DarkSide

[Belle.]

If you honestly think animals are in immense pain or being tortured, you are seriously out of the loop. I go through this with mice and dogs in cancer research and none of the ones at any labs I visited on the East Coast were under any kind of torture or immense pain.

Would you have your family pet undergo these experiments, or yourself for that matter? And if not, please articulate in full, why not.

There is currently no alternative to animal research or else I would have forced the lab to use it. There are complementary methods but they by no means can be used as an alternative.What would you have us do, halt all animal research and release vaccines and other drugs that will certainly kill much of the population, not only due to the drug itself but due to the illness, infection, or virus that the drug was supposed to prevent? Thats right, you can thank nearly every medical advancement in the last 100 years to research that has been done on animals. We wouldn't have advanced otherwise.

I was slightly unaware of this previously, but from what I have been reading, many animal experiments have been quite misleading. Short of observing a parralel universe I suppose we do not know what could have been achieved without animal testing. And we don't know from animal studies whether drugs are safe for humans or not. That is like saying we will test dog medicine on a cat and fingers crossed they will have the same reaction. Just because one species reacts in a certain way doesn't mean another one will at all.

http://animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/v...=a&start=20

Cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, alcohol and glass fibres are all safe to ingest, according to animal studies.

http://www.askuswhy.com/drug_(4).htm

Penicillin, considered one of the most significant medical advances, was delayed and nearly disregarded altogether because of animal testing. Alexander Fleming first noted penicillin killing bacteria in petri dishes. He then tested in on rabbits. It failed. Rabbits, unlike humans, excrete penicillin in their urine before it can be effective. Fleming put the drug aside, believing it to be useless. He later had a very sick patient he felt there was no hope for. With nothing to lose, he tried administering the penicillin. The patient's life was saved, and antibiotics were introduced to the world. H.W. Florey, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of penicillin, attempted administering it to a sick cat. The cat died. Luckily, Fleming initially tested penicillin on rabbits. Though not effective, at least it was not harmful. Had he tested his preparation on cats, guinea pigs, or hamsters it most likely would have have never been tried on humans, as it is fatal to all of them. Penicillin is also known to cause birth defects in rats.

According to Alexander Fleming himself, the man who invented penicillin, "How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940's, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."

Without animal research, life as we know it would be wiped out due to the flu, if not other viruses.

That is so extreme, even with your job/qualifications I must ask you to provide a source for the destruction of life as we know it without animal testing. Sounds like you have been taking lessons from PETA in the art of propaganda.

Its just the question. . .would YOU like to be in that situation? Would you like to be robbed at birth of living a normal and natural life? And I'm sorry, but I HAVE heard the argument, "Oh they're just animals." And "Just animals" can have lives too. . .and they can NOT like whats being done to them. . .if they had a choice, do you think they'd rather be free or be the subject of experiments?

I agree with you Sweetsalem!! Of course they don't want to be in these horrid experiments! One thing I have been wondering though, is how do these animal experimenters go from playing with the family dog on the weekend to experimenting on one in the lab on Monday morning? I suppose like the Nazis who worked the 'job' during the week and went home to wifey and the family on the weekend and were loving Dads. Now that is an interesting case of behavioural psychology!

The Nazi experiments were an afront against man, very sick and twisted , we would have found out about the effects Of freezing Peoples heads in Ice til their eyeballs and Brain poped with out Ift being Forced on another. People die of freezing all the time, no need to force it, Justifying any form of torture IMO is sick as Hitlers dream of an arien race,

I have noticed there is a phase that some young people go through of interest in the Nazi experiments. Testing and pushing moral boundaries of "Well some of the outcomes were interesting.....so does that justify it?" But, without a doubt they are most certainly a filthy, disgusting affront.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Belle.