UK to stop testing household products on

[mattavich123]

I can assure you that most scientists who conduct studies using animals as test subjects have the utmost respect for the animals, however they feel (rightly so in my opinion) that the potential benefits of what they're testing outweighs the loss of life caused by this testing.

Let me ask you this as you seem to feel so strongly about it, if you get diagnosed with a curable disease, however the cure was tested on animals, will you refuse it?

Or how about if you have a child who's got MS, and current medical practices have the ability to greatly enhance their quality of life, but it was developed with animal testing, will you deny your child the right to live like others because of that?

If I had an incurable disease, and you told me you had to make "tests" on my dog which could result in death, I would decline. If you did it anyway, I would kill you.

Let me make this clear. I value animals lives. We are talking bout HOUSEHOLD products here. Not the cure for an incurable disease.

If you believe you need to kill animals to see if fairy liquid causes death then you deserve the same treatment.

I watched a debate about this on TV a few days ago, apparently it isn't even necessary to test household products on animals anymore, yet we still kept on doing it for years. It is a disgrace.

Lastly how do you know what respect scientists have for these animals? You're full of crap.

Edited July 28, 2011 by mattavich123

[H.H. Holmes]

If I had an incurable disease, and you told me you had to make "tests" on my dog which could result in death, I would decline. If you did it anyway, I would kill you.

Let me make this clear. I value animals lives. We are talking bout HOUSEHOLD products here. Not the cure for an incurable disease.

If you believe you need to kill animals to see if fairy liquid causes death then you deserve the same treatment.

I watched a debate about this on TV a few days ago, apparently it isn't even necessary to test household products on animals anymore, yet we still kept on doing it for years. It is a disgrace.

Lastly how do you know what respect scientists have for these animals? You're full of crap.

You are not answering his question. Would you, if you or a loved one had a fatal health condition, accept a treatment that was developed through animal research that would have a high chance of curing you? We are not talking about testing it on your dog, or any dog, but something developed through testing on mice or rabbits.

Edited July 28, 2011 by H.H. Holmes

[mattavich123]

You are not answering his question. Would you, if you or a loved one had a fatal health condition, accept a treatment that was developed through animal research that would have a high chance of curing you? We are not talking about testing it on your dog, or any dog, but something developed through testing on mice or rabbits.

I did answer his question.

You're making an assumption that diseases can only be cured through animal testing.

Animal testing can include dogs, why should I exclude them from the question? The 2009 annual report shows that 3.5 million animals suffered and died in experiments. I love my dog more than other people in my life, I value her life greatly.

Your question is very easy to answer. Yes I would use it, because it is available. I also eat meat every day. But I dislike the thought of any animal suffering, especially an animal that is close to my heart and I share a relationship with.

So the only conclusion is to stop testing animals. I also would love to see how a scientist would feel if we used them as the testing animals.

Do you know rats are highly intelligent? They have feelings and emotions.

When I hear of animal testers being abused and receiving death threats from animal rights activists I feel sad, because violence is always sad. But I know that the animal is not a willing party in this testing scheme. It is forced to endure and suffer. So I have no sympathy and somewhere inside I feel a great sense of justice, because for every animal tester which feels scared, pained and in suffering knows only a small fraction of what these poor caged animals go through.

You will never convince me it is necessary for animal testing for such trivial things like household products. It will never be acceptable.

Edited July 28, 2011 by mattavich123

[mattavich123]

"an American company called Marshall BioSciences which now wants to expand a huge beagle factory in East Yorkshire. This establishment would churn out thousands of animals doomed to suffer a painful and lingering death in poisoning tests. Any dogs deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ will be callously destroyed."

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2011/beaglefactory.htm

It is simply barbaric and I can't even explain how angry I feel towards the idea that there are dog factories out there made to breed dogs for poisoning tests. Every single dog has to be destroyed afterwards. It is shameful for the UK. I seriously hope something changes, it is heartbreaking.

"As the toxins inexorably build up in their bodies, the dogs get sicker and sicker. They vomit and suffer diarrhoea as their organs begin to fail and their blood becomes poisoned. Eventually, some will have fits and seizures.

Slowly they succumb to paralysis. Instead of being put out of their misery, researchers often ignore regulations and let the animals endure the most painful, lingering death imaginable.

In more than three quarters of the tests, the dogs were not even given any anaesthetic to ease their suffering. What did they ever do to deserve this?"

Edited July 28, 2011 by mattavich123

[H.H. Holmes]

I did answer his question.

You're making an assumption that diseases can only be cured through animal testing.

Animal testing can include dogs, why should I exclude them from the question? The 2009 annual report shows that 3.5 million animals suffered and died in experiments. I love my dog more than other people in my life, I value her life greatly.

Your question is very easy to answer. Yes I would use it, because it is available. I also eat meat every day. But I dislike the thought of any animal suffering, especially an animal that is close to my heart and I share a relationship with.

So the only conclusion is to stop testing animals. I also would love to see how a scientist would feel if we used them as the testing animals.

Do you know rats are highly intelligent? They have feelings and emotions.

When I hear of animal testers being abused and receiving death threats from animal rights activists I feel sad, because violence is always sad. But I know that the animal is not a willing party in this testing scheme. It is forced to endure and suffer. So I have no sympathy and somewhere inside I feel a great sense of justice, because for every animal tester which feels scared, pained and in suffering knows only a small fraction of what these poor caged animals go through.

You will never convince me it is necessary for animal testing for such trivial things like household products. It will never be acceptable.

Can you prove that rats have emotions comparable to a human being?

Even then, a rat's life won't amount to much anyways, might as well use them for the greater good.

Also, if it wasn't for the discovery of insulin in dogs, then many people with diabetes, perhaps millions, would not be alive today.

The discovery of insulin in dogs in the 1920s by Banting and Best is a good example of the contribution of animal research to medical progress. Before the discovery of insulin, there was no effective treatment for the disease and people with diabetes usually died tragically young. Diabetic dogs have also benefited from insulin treatment.

Each decade since the discovery of insulin has seen the introduction of new kinds of treatments for many diseases. Each of these and many other advances were critically dependent on animal research.

Given continued research using animals, we can expect further advances in the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, cystic fibrosis and crippling joint disease. It is very difficult to see how we could make such medical advances without animal research.

Four independent reports have found that animal studies make an important contribution to scientific and medical advances.

Animal testing has been a key component in over 70 nobel prize winners research. It has helped to save millions of lives and to help those living with debilitating illnesses to lead productive lives.

Note that the research done on these dogs helped many other dogs, who had diabetes, live long healthy lives, so the benefits are not just exclusive to the human species. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis. A few dozen dogs die for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of other animals to live. They are martyrs to science and their contribution should be recognized.

Smallpox (cow): The vaccinia vaccine against smallpox was derived from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner following his observation that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox - It has now been eradicated from earth. Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey), anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit).

Animal testing has also led to advances in our knowledge that may help us develop additional cures, including an understanding of the Malaria lifecycle (pigeon), tuberculosis (cow, sheep), Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), and the function of neurons (cat, dog). Vivisection was also crucial in the discovery of anti-blood-clotting drugs for the treatment of haemophilia (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig), laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey).

Animal testing is still a critical part in biomedical research and without the sacrifice of these animals many other animals, including humans, would never get a chance to get the life-saving treatments that were developed through animal testing.

What is a bigger crime? Using animals for testing that could potentially save numerous lives, both human and animal. Or not taking advantage of possible medical advancements and letting other creatures needlessly suffer when scientific research that involves animal testing could alleviate symptoms or cure their ailments? I find the latter a greater crime than the former.

I do agree that using animals for the testing of cleaning products isn't as justifiable as animals testing for biomedical breakthroughs. If there is another viable alternative, then it should be used before resorting to animal testing.

My link

[mattavich123]

I found something else interesting on this site. If true it would show the ultimate failings of animal testing.

So even the idea that it is practical to test on animals is being challenged.

Even so, I still would not allow animal testing even if it do prove an effective way of testing drugs.

"New NHS Report Confirms Failings of Animal Experiments

Six recent studies funded by the NHS set out to examine the relevance to humans of testing treatments on animals. The report, Testing Treatment on Animals: Relevance to Humans, [7] was commissioned by the NHS and published in May 2006. Its purpose was to test the extent to which animal experiments concur with the human medicine. The study revealed that:

• animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work
  
• clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the animal research is completed
  
• drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway
  
• a drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless, used in people
  
• most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results
  

"

[mattavich123]

Can you prove that rats have emotions comparable to a human being?

Even then, a rat's life won't amount to much anyways, might as well use them for the greater good.

Also, if it wasn't for the discovery of insulin in dogs, then many people with diabetes, perhaps millions, would not be alive today.

Note that the research done on these dogs helped many other dogs, who had diabetes, live long healthy lives, so the benefits are not just exclusive to the human species. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis. A few dozen dogs die for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of other animals to live. They are martyrs to science and their contribution should be recognized.

Animal testing is still a critical part in biomedical research and without the sacrifice of these animals many other animals, including humans, would never get a chance to get the life-saving treatments that were developed through animal testing.

What is a bigger crime? Using animals for testing that could potentially save numerous lives, both human and animal. Or not taking advantage of possible medical advancements and letting other creatures needlessly suffer when scientific research that involves animal testing could alleviate symptoms or cure their ailments? I find the latter a greater crime than the former.

I do agree that using animals for the testing of cleaning products isn't as justifiable as animals testing for biomedical breakthroughs. If there is another viable alternative, then it should be used before resorting to animal testing.

My link

How do you even know that testing is "critical"? That's right, you just assumed. Even if it was "critical", we should not be testing on animals because it is CRUEL.

Viable alternatives! And there you have it. But we both know this is all about MONEY. There is money in testing animals and viable alternatives will not be used. The government has been taken to court over this before.

Read my post above.

Many of you have this blind assumption that these researchers are INCREDIBLE, churning out amazing vaccines and cures every year. That regulations are strict and the scientists ensure they do not suffer.

This is all complete b******s.

How about we stand you infront of 3.5 million animals and 1 by 1 you watch them die and a "scientist" reads out why they were tested. Unless you're a cold hearted b****** you'll soon start to ask "is this necessary? This is wrong"

Edited July 28, 2011 by mattavich123

[H.H. Holmes]

How do you even know that testing is "critical"? That's right, you just assumed. Even if it was "critical", we should not be testing on animals because it is CRUEL.

Viable alternatives! And there you have it. But we both know this is all about MONEY. There is money in testing animals and viable alternatives will not be used. The government has been taken to court over this before.

Read my post above.

Many of you have this blind assumption that these researchers are INCREDIBLE, churning out amazing vaccines and cures every year. That regulations are strict and the scientists ensure they do not suffer.

This is all complete b******s.

How about we stand you infront of 3.5 million animals and 1 by 1 you watch them die and a "scientist" reads out why they were tested. Unless you're a cold hearted b****** you'll soon start to ask "is this necessary? This is wrong"

It is critical as judged by four independent studies, it is the link I quoted.

So you deny that all of the medical breakthroughs that I listed benefited from animal testing? The critical part that insulin plays in diabetes wasn't discovered through the testing of dogs?

[H.H. Holmes]

I found something else interesting on this site. If true it would show the ultimate failings of animal testing.

So even the idea that it is practical to test on animals is being challenged.

Even so, I still would not allow animal testing even if it do prove an effective way of testing drugs.

"New NHS Report Confirms Failings of Animal Experiments

Six recent studies funded by the NHS set out to examine the relevance to humans of testing treatments on animals. The report, Testing Treatment on Animals: Relevance to Humans, [7] was commissioned by the NHS and published in May 2006. Its purpose was to test the extent to which animal experiments concur with the human medicine. The study revealed that:

• animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work
  
• clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the animal research is completed
  
• drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway
  
• a drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless, used in people
  
• most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results
  

"

Do you have a link to the full study? I tried looking for it on search engines and couldn't find the complete study anywhere, just people quoting certian pieces. I want a full perspective of the study, instead of relying on other people's interpretations.

[psychoticmike]

I found something else interesting on this site. If true it would show the ultimate failings of animal testing.

So even the idea that it is practical to test on animals is being challenged.

Even so, I still would not allow animal testing even if it do prove an effective way of testing drugs.

"New NHS Report Confirms Failings of Animal Experiments

Six recent studies funded by the NHS set out to examine the relevance to humans of testing treatments on animals. The report, Testing Treatment on Animals: Relevance to Humans, [7] was commissioned by the NHS and published in May 2006. Its purpose was to test the extent to which animal experiments concur with the human medicine. The study revealed that:

• animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work
  
• clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the animal research is completed
  
• drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway
  
• a drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless, used in people
  
• most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results
  

"

i have a question for you. What if there was no such thing as fruits and vegetables and the only thing to eat was animals? to go a little further, what if the only way it was safe to eat those animals was to cook them alive in a very slow painful manner? would you not do it and starve to death?

testing animals may suck (it definitely sucks for them) but it is for the greater good.

would you rather your mother be tested instead of your dog? or any animal?

i see a potential solution. What if we tested these things on known murderers who have been proven to have committed murder beyond any doubt? there would probably be more reliable results to, since the test subjects would be from our own species.

[Dougal]

If I had an incurable disease, and you told me you had to make "tests" on my dog which could result in death, I would decline. If you did it anyway, I would kill you.

Let me make this clear. I value animals lives. We are talking bout HOUSEHOLD products here. Not the cure for an incurable disease.

If you believe you need to kill animals to see if fairy liquid causes death then you deserve the same treatment.

I watched a debate about this on TV a few days ago, apparently it isn't even necessary to test household products on animals anymore, yet we still kept on doing it for years. It is a disgrace.

I don't think we should kill animals to continue testing products that we KNOW about already. However, if somebody starts making "fairy liquid" with a different chemical in it, yes, it should be tested. As I've said, I'd rather have a dead dog, as sad as that is, than a dead baby. I'm sorry if that offends you but I happen to value human life quite alot.

When I hear of animal testers being abused and receiving death threats from animal rights activists I feel sad, because violence is always sad. But I know that the animal is not a willing party in this testing scheme. It is forced to endure and suffer. So I have no sympathy and somewhere inside I feel a great sense of justice, because for every animal tester which feels scared, pained and in suffering knows only a small fraction of what these poor caged animals go through

You sir, truly scare me, you try and project this holier than thou appearance and yet come out with things like this. So an eye for an eye is now acceptable?

How about we stand you infront of 3.5 million animals and 1 by 1 you watch them die and a "scientist" reads out why they were tested. Unless you're a cold hearted b****** you'll soon start to ask "is this necessary? This is wrong"

How about you stand infront of everybody who could be saved by treatments developed through animal testing and explain to them why they can't have a chance at life. You'll pretty soon realise that empathy towards humans is a pretty strong emotion, if you don't, you're probably psychotic.

Lastly how do you know what respect scientists have for these animals? You're full of crap.

Lastly. I KNOW that scientists respect these animals because I've worked with them. I did a degree in Biochemistry and I worked day in day out with people who had to work on animals, I saw them get attacked by animal rights protesters, and I saw them try and explain to these people how 100 dead animals can save 100 million lives. Kindly, refrain from saying that I'm full of crap when you have no idea about me. It's rude and to be honest it makes you look pretty damn stupid.

[mattavich123]

Animal testing is all about money.

These are very big contracts.

You're all living in a bubble where you think that animal testing provides unmeasurable gains for human kind.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

[mattavich123]

I don't think we should kill animals to continue testing products that we KNOW about already. However, if somebody starts making "fairy liquid" with a different chemical in it, yes, it should be tested. As I've said, I'd rather have a dead dog, as sad as that is, than a dead baby. I'm sorry if that offends you but I happen to value human life quite alot.

You sir, truly scare me, you try and project this holier than thou appearance and yet come out with things like this. So an eye for an eye is now acceptable?

How about you stand infront of everybody who could be saved by treatments developed through animal testing and explain to them why they can't have a chance at life. You'll pretty soon realise that empathy towards humans is a pretty strong emotion, if you don't, you're probably psychotic.

Lastly. I KNOW that scientists respect these animals because I've worked with them. I did a degree in Biochemistry and I worked day in day out with people who had to work on animals, I saw them get attacked by animal rights protesters, and I saw them try and explain to these people how 100 dead animals can save 100 million lives. Kindly, refrain from saying that I'm full of crap when you have no idea about me. It's rude and to be honest it makes you look pretty damn stupid.

This is just plain stupid.

Animals are not a willing party, they are born to die horrible deaths in these circumstances.

You're still under the illusion that animal testing produces miracle cures on a convener belt. It would be impossible for me to stand infront of "everybody" because the cures are do not have animal testing to thank for their creation. Animal testing is not responsible for cures, you moron.

Honestly you all live in some kind of fictional bubble where animal testing does so much great work for the world. You really have no idea.

It is great that you THINK 100 animals lives saves 100 million lives.

Tell me, over 3 million animals died last year. How many millions of lvies were saved?

Utterly retarded and backwards viewpoints and plain ignorance.

[Dougal]

This is just plain stupid.

Animals are not a willing party, they are born to die horrible deaths in these circumstances.

You're still under the illusion that animal testing produces miracle cures on a convener belt. It would be impossible for me to stand infront of "everybody" because the cures are do not have animal testing to thank for their creation. Animal testing is not responsible for cures, you moron.

Honestly you all live in some kind of fictional bubble where animal testing does so much great work for the world. You really have no idea.

It is great that you THINK 100 animals lives saves 100 million lives.

Tell me, over 3 million animals died last year. How many millions of lvies were saved?

Utterly retarded and backwards viewpoints and plain ignorance.

Smallpox (cow): The vaccinia vaccine against smallpox was derived from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner following his observation that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox - It has now been eradicated from earth. Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey), anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit).

Animal testing has also led to advances in our knowledge that may help us develop additional cures, including an understanding of the Malaria lifecycle (pigeon), tuberculosis (cow, sheep), Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), and the function of neurons (cat, dog). Vivisection was also crucial in the discovery of anti-blood-clotting drugs for the treatment of haemophilia (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig), laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey).

There are your cures through animal testing, it's not miraculous, it's through hard work. Animal testing is a large part of the development of vaccines and cures.

[Blackwhite]

Is there a viable substitute to animal testing in assessing the safety of these products?

They should test products on prisoners.

Just drag the likes of Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe to a lab and test household products on them.

At the end of each day lock them up - without giving them treatment for the nasty burns they may have sustained - in a 6ft by 6ft cage and give them mouldy bread and toilet water to eat and drink.

After a few months of being lab rats, we could then send them to be used as crash test dummies.

Once dead, we could send their corpses to the nearest zoo as food for the carnivores.

This will get massive support across the country, with only a few liberal lefties opposing it, but everyone will just ignore them.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Blackwhite

[hetrodoxly]

If anyone tried to test a product on my dog, I would kill them, literally.

Think about that.

I'm sorry i only just saw this.

Do you think your capable? and no I've given it no consideration whatsoever.

[itsnotoutthere]

"UK to stop testing household products on"

Well, there are a few hundred specimens in Tottenham that we could use instead..

Edited August 15, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[mattavich123]

I'm sorry i only just saw this.

Do you think your capable? and no I've given it no consideration whatsoever.

100% certain. It brought me to tears when my dog was lost for a few hours. I can't even bare the thought of harm coming to them. They are a huge part of my life and I love them with all my heart.

So when I see something like this in the video below from an undercover agent in an animal testing facility, I can tell you with almost certainty that if I was to see someone harming my dog in this way then the only thought in my mind would be to save my dog. I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. All I would be able to think about is my dog so their lives wouldn't mean anything to me, i'd just want to save my dog and I'd risk my own life doing it. I can definitely see myself causing fatal damage in this situation, not by choice, but because I see my dog as a very big part of my family.

In Yorkshire, at the animal testing facility there are puppies rigged up to tubes, forced into cramped cages while they are fed poison intravenously. A report showed that a third ar enot given an anaesthetic and euthanasia is not applied at the right time, so they are left to die of the poison.

*snip*

You know, in WW2 Jewish people were treated with the same respect. Do you think that's right? Obviously not, testing on humans will never be acceptable to you. But the only difference in animal testing and the death camps is your perception. And in both cases, it is the ultimate abuse of power. You can't cause so much harm and suffering because you think it will "make the world a better place". It wasn't acceptable in the death camps of WW2 and it should not be acceptable for animals to be treated in the same way.

It is people like you, who would call yourselves "moral citizens" who support such atrocities that allow this to happen. These testing facilities are death camps to abuse life for your own selfish purposes. How can you say you have morals when you allow animals to be tortured like this? These facilities bring little lives into the world and make them suffer. They didn't ask to be born, they don't want to be fed poison and tortured, what gives humans the right to treat them like this? The simple answer is we DON'T have the right, we simply abuse our power through our perception that theyr life is somehow worth less than ours, just as the Nazis did to the Jews. The comparisons are startling.

The only difference between me and you is that I see an animals life as much more, which is why I certainly am capable of killing someone if they harm my dog, just like I would if they harmed my children.

I don't think you people understand exactly what happens in these facilities. you sit and say "oh it is for the good our human kind".

3 million a year. Are you seriously going to condone actions like this 3 million times a year int eh search for supposed "miricle cures" which still escape us?

*snip*

Edited September 14, 2011 by Saru
Removed videos depicting graphic animal cruelty

[mattavich123]

Is it any surprise that dog and cat food manufacturers fund animal testing?

WAKE UP PEOPLE. Animal testing is about MONEY.

*snip*

Is this what you want to happen to your own dogs in the name of "research"?

I honestly can't look for anymore of these videos because it breaks my heart.

*snip*

I urge you to please watch all the videos. I don't think any of you have the right to accept animal testing until you've watched what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in these facilities, then multiply this by 3 million a year in the UK alone.

These animal testing companies WANT to pull the wool over your eyes, they are looking for sheeple to follow the cliche without actually looking at what they're doing to the animals.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Saru
Removed videos depicting graphic animal cruelty

[secondhand]

They should just test on animal criminals.

[Robbie333]

Without getting into a big "go nowwhere" spill allow me this. I am glad and it is about time. It should be stopped all over the world. JMO

[mattavich123]

What angers me most is the ignorance of people who say they support animal testing when they don't actually understand what goes on in these places.

The administrator here has rightfully disallowed me to post the videos of animal in these testing facilities because it is CRUELTY at its worst.

If the torture and cruelty to these animals is so bad that the public should not be allowed to see it, then why do people still support it?

I think everyone who believes animal testing is a good thing should be forced to watch exactly what happens in these places and exactly how these animals are treated.

Edited September 15, 2011 by mattavich123

[psychoticmike]

What angers me most is the ignorance of people who say they support animal testing when they don't actually understand what goes on in these places.

you make a lot of assumptions don't you?

The administrator here has rightfully disallowed me to post the videos of animal in these testing facilities because it is CRUELTY at its worst.

If the torture and cruelty to these animals is so bad that the public should not be allowed to see it, then why do people still support it?

so you send it to me? when you didn't even respond to my message? i don't need to see those videos i am fully aware of what takes place, and i've seen far worse in my life. There are children on this site and not everbody wants there kids exposed to such material. I would make a suggestion that you watch a certain documentary series that is all real footage of things and events that will probably traumatize your average person for life but i don't want the kiddies stumbling upon it so if your interested send me another pm. As i said animal testing is not nice, it sucks i agree on that but it is for the greater good, maybe not in all cases and people will obviously take it to the extreme but overall it is to ensure our safety.

I've had pets almost all my life and loved most of them very much so i know where your coming from, but this is just how it is sometimes you just have to pick between the lesser of two evils.

I think everyone who believes animal testing is a good thing should be forced to watch exactly what happens in these places and exactly how these animals are treated.

whys that? people know what takes place and what happens to those animals they do not need to watch it to learn what they already know. Anyway this is my stance i know you don't agree with it but i feel that if its gonna help us then its a good thing, i don't think animals should be hunted for sport or to make clothing but when it comes to medical advancements i think its worth it.

Edited September 15, 2011 by psychoticmike

[Dougal]

Why are these OK? There's not even the excuse of advancing our knowledge.

They're designed specifically to kill and I'll wager that an awful lot more than 3 million rats/mice/insects are killed each year due to these products.

[H.H. Holmes]

Why are these OK? There's not even the excuse of advancing our knowledge.

They're designed specifically to kill and I'll wager that an awful lot more than 3 million rats/mice/insects are killed each year due to these products.

People don't care about "vermin". They just want to save the "cute and cuddly" animals because they have infantile features that appeal to a deep seeded need to nuture in all of us. Hypocrisy. We kill millions, if not billions of animals, for pest control purposes, which is largely pretty much for convenience, and then get upset when the killing of animals in intended for beneficial purposes, such as testing medicines.