Guinea pig farm forced to close...

[lepeep]

Why? Does your rabbit have cancer?

bless, thanks for the thought.

Of course, animals have different metabolics / makeup from Humans, so not all "test" are useful, but, cells is cells, and I am sure (as I said) they wouldn't do pointless tests for shits and giggles.

if cancers can be treated from research from (animal) cells, I say that's a good thing.

[nullmouse]

http://www.curedisease.net

Oh dear god... Not that website too.

More later' date=' when I have time. Your reply merits a few hours researching. (also read: recovering from hangover)

In the meantime, try:

[url']http://www.medicalprogress.org/

[threeornothing]

and I am sure (as I said) they wouldn't do pointless tests for shits and giggles.

Let me look out the videos....

if cancers can be treated from research from (animal) cells' date=' I say that's a good thing.[/quote']

Have read into many cases of people beating cancer by adopting an esoteric diet (macrobiotic), full of living raw foods such as brown rice, green vegetables, seeds, seaweeds, beans, soy, miso etc.... we've seen from the "should we eat animals" thread that everyone snubs this sort of diet....so animals will continue to die for your plate (or palate), continue to die to look for cures for the cancer (while many root causes will continue to thrive) and it will just go on and on and on with more and more victims....half my family have already died from cancer....

[nullmouse]

Why? Does your rabbit have cancer?

89% of medicines used for animals were originally developed for human use' date=' so if his rabbit did have cancer he'd have medical research to thank for pretty much all the drugs used to treat it.

Interesting fact, the first antibiotic (Penicillin) had been delayed for over 10 years after misleading results with experimenting on rabbits...had the drug been tested on guinea pigs, it would have been scrapped altogether, as it kills them! Of course, we know penicillin to be safe for our consumption...

It takes a drug an average of ten to twelve years to reach the market for human use currently. Penicillin was discovered in 1931, produced in mass first in 1939. An eight year gap - That's pretty speedy by today's standards. Kind of shorter than over ten years, but what's a few years between friends?

What I find hard to swallow is that' date=' animal testing became legal after the thalidomide tragedy (a drug which was meant to reduce morning sickness, pain and ease child birth). This was tested on guinea pigs, cats, armadillos, ferrets etc...with plausable results, although as little as one dose on a human was enough to produce major birth defects as seen below.... of course, if the drug was to be tested today, it would pass the animal test!!!! Same goes for the polio vaccine...[/quote']

Thalidomide is an often used example, but it happens to be a very poor one. If the correct animal tests had been carried out the whole fiasco could have been avoided. As it were, Chemie Grünenthal (the company that produced Thalidomide) was taken to court and found guilty of neglecting to carry out the correct animal trials. So you are right, it was found to be non-toxic in a wide range of species, but the key tests in pregnant animals were not carried out. If it wasn't for Francis Oldham Kelsey refusing to budge on her demand for further animal experimentation before granting thalidomide a full license the number of deformed births would have been considerably higher.

Kelsey's insistence on further animal testing probably saved thousands of children and highlighted the need for strictly regulated and controlled testing on animals. As a result severe guidelines for stringent animal testing was implemented.

Thalidomide has recently been found to be a useful treatment against leprosy and helps boost the immune system in cancer patients, helping their own bodies fight tumours. Observations which stemmed from work in animals.

In the case of thalidomide the results could have been prevented if the correct animal tests had been carried out. You have to ask what the alternative would have been in the 1950's though, given how little was known about genomics. In the absence of animal testing then a severely teratogenic drug would still have been trialed in humans, found to be non-toxic until it was given to the target patients - Pregnant women. So without any animal testing the tragedy may still have occurred.

So no, if tested today thalidomide would not pass the tests - It is an erroneous example to use and proves nothing about any inadquecies in animal testing. If the correct animal tests had been used at the time then it wouldn't have passed then either.

You'll have to explain what you mean about the polio vaccine, by the way. In what way was animal testing of the polio vaccine misleading?

The list of drugs which tested ok on animals and near fatal on humans is endless!!!!!! (Cerestat' date=' MaxiPost, Zendra, Lotrafiban, gavestinel, nimodipine, clomethiazole etc. etc.) If we believed everything about animal tests, we would believe there to be no problem with inhaling cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benene etc...of course we all know different![/quote']

Cigarette smoke was shown to induce tumours in rats as early as 1957 - "The production of lung tumours in rats by 3:4 benzpyrene methylcholanthrene and the condensate from cigarette smoke" published in the British Journal of Cancer. Similarily asbestos, arsenic and benzene have all been shown to be toxic in a variety of animals since the 1950-60's. Yes, we all know different, and the reason we know different is because of the number of animal tests performed on these substances.

As for the list of drugs, the fact that you say they are near-fatal is key here - Without animal screening we'd be dealing with a substantially longer list of drugs that do kill.

With the drugs you list (of which all are for the treatment of strokes or severe CNS damage) around 20% of patients die normally if untreated - Where's the ethical line? You're not giving examples of drugs used to make breath smell nice, but potentially live saving drugs - In the case of all the drugs mentioned, they were all non-toxic to healthy human patients but may (and I strongly use the word may) increase the chance of morbidity by a few percent who are already at an exceptionally high risk of death.

Wake up....as far back as 1964' date=' medical directors have admitted that animal testing isn't done for scientific reasons, but for legal reasons! The same is true today....drugs must pass several stages (computer based simulation, test tube, animal, human...) Basically, if you die from a drug....the fact the pharmaceutical company have tested the drug on an animal saves their ass!! Thats their green light...

[/quote']

This makes no sense at all. Yes, legally animal tests have to be performed before a drug can be tested in humans, but to claim they aren't done for scientific reasons is absolutely ridiculous. Their green light for what, exactly? Now, I don't want to get into a massive argument about the rights and wrongs of large corporations and pharmaceutical industries (suffice it to say there's a reason why I'm sticking in academia) but animal testing is a legally compulsory step of drug development for scientific reasons. The pharmaceutical industry would probably love an end to it - drugs passing quicker on to the market, less stringent quality control, less paper work and considerably less expense - Hell, do away with animal testing and if we're lucky we'll have the same lax laws as the 1950s and end up with another thalidomide situation.

A recent independent survey with 500 GP's found that 82% are �concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans� and that 83% would �support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation�.

GPs aren't exactly a key group to ask' date=' and this is exactly why they get asked by the anti-animal testing lobby. Ask the pharmacologists and the toxicologists, the advisory committee on animal testing (which includes representatives from animal welfare bodies, folks, not just scientists) and those doing the essential basic science behind the end product and you'll find less doubt about the validity of animal testing. Ask the GP right next to the patient, the guy with his neck on the line and of course he's going to be 'concerned'. I'd support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation because I know it happens constantly, on a year by year and case by case basis - I know that only essential science is performed on animals in the UK, that if there are any alternatives that they are used. Failure to do this doesn't result in raps of the fingers, it results in jail and the stripping of licenses to do any animal work from entire universities and companies - not just from the individual doing the work.

EDIT...forgot to add the pic

Lets hear it for animal testing!

Yes, lets - Because if the proper animal tests were perfomed then the sad situation of this poor baby above would never have occurred.

If you want my personal opinion, I feel that animal testing can never be ruled out of drug development but the use of animals will be greatly reduced. Aside from the ethical considerations, the cost of animal research is high and the legislation is remarkably tight and time-consuming. As well it should be.

It should also be remembered that a large amount of animal research is done in order to heighten the understanding of debilitating diseases and not just to check the reaction of a rat to a pill. Here's the Home Office breakdown for 2003 (the most recent figures available)

32%: Genetic studies, eg to find the function of a gene or study diseases

31%: Developing ways to treat/prevent diseases, eg multiple sclerosis, plus testing new medicines for safety

31%: Fundamental biological and medical research, eg finding out how the brain works

4%: Safety testing of non-medical products, eg pesticides. No testing of cosmetics since 1998

2%: Developing new methods of diagnosis, eg scanning unborn babies

My own personal annoyance comes from low-punches the animal rights activists punch, designed to pull heart strings and not appeal to logical thinking. They act as if there are alternatives for every animal test that needs to be done when there simply isn't, they portray scientists as sick people who torture puppies for enjoyment more than performing considered and reasoned science. They dig up grandmothers and attack on a personal level. I think it's because they have no level playing field, that their arguments have to rely upon pulling emotional tricks - Like liberating guinea pigs when they are in the minority of animals used (around 2%) whilst rats and mice make up 85% - Hard to get public sympathy for vermin, easier for pets. Primates make up 0.2% of all animals used, cats and dogs around 0.3% (Home Office figures from 2003).

I have a large amount of respect for those involved in animal welfare that constantly strive to work with scientists to help promote alternative techniques and those who constantly invigilate the procdures and legislation in the UK. Rightly so, it should be tightly regulated and it is - But public confidence in this fact is nil. I may lay some blame at rights activists promoting a biased and manipulatively emotional argument but the real problem lies with the secretive nature of scientists, the lack of transparency about what is involved and the reluctance to attempt to explain and justify it to the public. Own worse enemies.

[nullmouse]

Have read into many cases of people beating cancer by adopting an esoteric diet (macrobiotic)' date=' full of living raw foods such as brown rice, green vegetables, seeds, seaweeds, beans, soy, miso etc.... we've seen from the "should we eat animals" thread that everyone snubs this sort of diet....so animals will continue to die for your plate (or palate), continue to die to look for cures for the cancer (while many root causes will continue to thrive) and it will just go on and on and on with more and more victims....half my family have already died from cancer....[/quote']

You'll have heard many anecdotal reports of people beating cancer through macrobiotic diet, which is about as far from scientific proof as you can get. However, a healthy diet and lifestyle will greatly reduce your risk of cancer - But it's a reduction of risk, a case of avoiding cancer rather than beating it. Remember that a lot of cancers have genetic components, and even a diet-conscious lifestyle only reduces your risk - It doesn't abolish it. I'm sorry to hear about your family - I mean no disrespect to them in any of my replies.

You are right about root causes thriving, like smoking and unhealthy diets. A healthy lifestyle goes a long way, but cancer is unfortunately too complicated a disease to award anyone immunity.

[Noir]

[Guest MerryChristmas]

In other news: GM Food Activists are up in arms with this http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/03/news/clone.php

[nullmouse]

Interesting fact' date=' the first antibiotic (Penicillin) had been delayed for over 10 years after misleading results with experimenting on rabbits...had the drug been tested on guinea pigs, it would have been scrapped altogether, as it kills them! Of course, we know penicillin to be safe for our consumption...

[/quote']

Searched more in to this today - There's a good read here (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_PageID=1069&i_ToolbarID=2). For those that don't want to read the whole link, here's a choice quote:

High daily doses of very impure penicillin killed 95% of guinea-pigs within 3-4 days. When the purity was increased tenfold, 60% died. We now know that even these preparations were only 60% pure. This it is quite likely, and is actually suggested in the 1943 paper, that the impurities in the early samples of penicillin were responsible for some of the toxicity. The paper also went to great pains to emphasise that the toxicity of penicillin for guinea-pigs did not mean that penicillin was toxic for people:

When treated with the same dose of penicillin per kilogram as the given to man guinea pigs did not die and, in fact, failed to show any signs of toxicity.

Or, basically, the animal rights campaigners have neglected to point out that the conclusion of the study they claim shows guinea pigs die from penicillin refers to the impurities in the treatment, not to the penicillin itself.

[Sue Denim..]

It seems that they are going to pick on Edinburgh Zoo now because of the new Polar Bear enclosure being built.

[stroppycow]

Well stated Keilan, and backed up with the relevant stats.

[nullmouse]

Well stated Keilan' date=' and backed up with the relevant stats.[/quote']

Didn't you read anything I posted? Or have you confused Keilan with me?