BACK
Animal Testing
This page will explain about the ineffectiveness of animal testing.
Related source: (HERE)
Animal testing is totally unaceptable and uncivil. And we will always be the guinea pig because animal and human system are different. Some drugs may have no effect on some animals while it can kill us. Some primates are not effected by some drugs while the same damn drug can make us extremely sick or even kill us. Some may work but a lot of them are failure we will always be the lab rat.
Is like how come some monkey are immune to HIV viruses when monkeys are primates which are like our cousins?. This prove animal testing is INEFFECTIVE and USELESS.
It is a fact that animals react differently than humans to different substances. This is also true between different animals. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet, the same guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine. Strychnine is one of the deadliest poisons for humans, but not for monkeys. Sheep are not affected by arsenic. Potassium cyanide, which is deadly to humans, is harmless to owls. This list is endless. For example why chocolate can kill dogs and probably cats too while is actually healthy for us. Why spices is extremely dangerous for dogs while is safe to eat for humans?. For example All reptiles and amphibians are capable of developing cancer. Cancer is rare in reptiles, and is even more so in many types of amphibians, but this does not mean that cancer does not appear from time to time. Reptiles and amphibians can develop many of the same types of cancers that other animals develop, including bone tumors, leukemia, bone marrow cancer and blood cell cancer. Cancer in reptiles is rare while is more common in human and probably warm blooded mammals. Probably even rarer in amphibians.

Revealed, Why Monkey Immune of AIDS
Several species of African monkeys such as sooty mangebey (Cercocebus atys) is known to have a natural defense mechanism that prevents them from becoming infected with HIV. These primates can be infected with the virus reported simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) without developing into AIDS even though the amount of the virus very much.

The phenomenon commonly known as a natural host currently being examined by scientists to study the development of drugs of HIV/AIDS to humans.

The scientists found that in monkeys body occurred regeneration of T cells, white blood cell types that make the immune system to fight germs or viral infections.

In particular note Sooty Mangabey monkeys infected with SIV or HIV virus in primate relatives able to maintain levels of CD4 and T cells through the rapid regeneration of CD4 and T cells, innocent or not exposed to toxins and other compounds that stimulate antibody production.

These research results, could explain why SIV and HIV can cause AIDS in primates, including humans. In this study, scientists from Yerkes National primates Research Center, Atlanta, Sooty Mangabey compare the rhesus monkeys infected with SIV.

"Although the two species showed accretion CDH4 cells and T cells, but in rhesus monkeys appear regeneration naive CD4 T cells more slowly," said Mirko Paiardini, one of the researchers. (sources)


Some animal disease doesn't effect human and some human diseases doesn't effect animal which prove we're different than animals. Is like trying to put a Sega genesis cartridge into a Super nintendo slot.
Stop animal testing - it's not just cruel, it's ineffective
By Kelly Overton
(source)

June 23, 2006 The pharmaceutical industry and the National Institutes of Health spend billions of dollars annually on medical research techniques that have been rendered obsolete by technological advances.

Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical research. The continued use of animals to test the effectiveness of medications and health interventions for humans is akin to using smoke signals instead of e-mail as a method of communication.

Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.

In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper. Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. Among the most publicized are the delays of a polio vaccine by over three decades and a four-year delay in the use of protease inhibitors for HIV treatment - after animal testing showed these interventions to be useless.

We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very few diseases are species-unique, and the only efficient and effective way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells, tissues and organs.

The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and disease almost always fails, simply because humans and animals have different physiologies.

Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.

Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil. It is evil, but it's not necessary. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes, telegrams and bloodletting. It is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science, through tax dollars and research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices.

It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that continue to profit by charging patients, insurance companies and the state and federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and antiquated research. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past decade, with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those killed or disabled by dangerous medicines.

Regardless of one's feelings about animals, it is time for consumers and taxpayers to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and produces an inferior product.

The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on animals.

The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat of biological terrorism. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and methodology.

Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical research. Researchers have proved ad infinitum that hitting a beagle on the head with a hammer causes trauma and forcing monkeys to smoke gives them cancer.

It's time to insist that they stop harming defenseless animals and wasting our precious health care dollars so they can get busy saving our lives by embracing technologies that work.

The site accepts fair use which is NOT for commercial use. My site is a non commercial and non-profit website.

Six Reasons why Animal Testing Doesn't Work

  • Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences
  • 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing
  • According to World Health Organization out of 200,000 released mediations only 240 are labeled as essential
  • Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies
  • Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time
  • Less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals

Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research! Cosmetic testing is banned in Belgium, Netherlands and the U.K.. Europe has been phasing out all products related to animal testing since 2002 and they plan to completely ban all products by 2009. This is a big step in right direction for millions of animals who were helplessly killed during tests for cosmetics and household products. Unfortunately the U.S. is still home to many companies who continue to legally perform horrible test on animals even though the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't require animal testing for cosmetics or household products!

Most of the animals that are used in testing are bred just for testing, but many others come from the pound. Mice, rabbits, dogs, guinea pigs, cats and monkey's are the most commonly used animals for tests. It has been proven that there is already enough existing safety data, as well as in vitro (test tube) alternatives to make animal testing for cosmetics and household products even more unnecessary and unethical. By just listing the names of the tests I will be able to give you a better idea of what these poor animals go through. Whole Body, Short-term Toxicity, Skin Penetration, Skin Irritancy, Eye irritancy, Skin Sensitization, Phototoxicity & Photosensitisation, Mutagenicity, Carcinogenicity, Reproductive Toxicity, Teratogenicity and Finished Product Testing are all common tests performed on animals.

The LD50 test short for lethal dose, is one of the worst tests that was developed back in 1927 and is still in use today. Groups of animals are dosed with different amounts of a test substance in order to determine the dose which kills half of the animals! Animals are often force-fed the substance. The LD50 test is known to use huge, unrealistic doses that are completely unrelated to possible exposure levels. There are now other tests available that use less animals and lower doses, yet this old, discredited LD50 test continues. During another common test, the Draize eye-and skin-irritation test, rabbits are immobilized in full-body restraints while a substance is dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto their shaved skin. Rabbits often scream in pain and many break their necks trying to get free. The Draize test has been proven in studies to "grossly over predicted the effects that could be seen in the human eye, and does not reflect the eye irritation hazard for man". The human four-hour patch skin test has proved to provide chemical skin-irritation data that are "inherently superior to that given by a surrogate model, such as the rabbit."

With so much going on in the world and our lives, I know it easy to feel overwhelmed and helpless. But by reading this article you have proved that you do care. I know it is hard and horrible to even think of what is happening behind closed doors. But right now there are millions of animals who are caged, tortured, and can't speak for themselves. You can make progress and reach out to help them by taking just a second to sign this online petition here. By not purchasing products from companies that continue to test on animals you are also sending the message that it is not right. (source)


Animal testing - Dangerous to human health

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that animal tests are dangerous to human health, and may be the reason that so many 'safety tested' drugs cause so many side effects.

Animal testing doesn't work.

Its results are often inconclusive and cannot be accurately extrapolated to humans. As a result, relying on the results of animal testing can be dangerous to human health. It is a system which is long overdue for a critical review, and yet no such review is on the horizon.

In his seminal book, the Naked Empress: The Great Medical Fraud (Switzerland: CIVIS, 1992) eminent researcher Hans Ruesch notes that approximately 15,000 new drugs are marketed every year, while some 12,000 are withdrawn. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 alone as a consequence of pharmaceutical drugs administered to "cure" them. A further 30 per cent of all hospitalised people suffered further damage from the therapy prescribed to them. In the 1990s, studies... (source)

Here is a video from Enigmahood explaining about the ineffectiveness of animal testing. Also talks about animal cruelty in Greece and their corrupted mayor.

Ineffectiveness of Animal Testing and Animal Rights in Greece.
Reading some personal messages regarding animal rights sent to me by various YouTube users including, Bohe32, hateanimalabuse, and xEndlessAutumnx.

Animal testing alternatives information:
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/12/scientific-alternatives-to-animal-tes...
http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12

Also here are more videos from Enigmahood explaining that animal testing is cruel and sadistic. Which is true.
Is seperated in 2 parts because at the time youtube didn't let you exceed 10min vid.


Arguments against the cruelty of Animal Testing 1/2
Replying to arguments raised by jonsonbrown in a personal message to me that animal testing is ethical since it is in the best interest to human beings. Just because something is in the best interest to humans, doesn't make it ethical. Animals should not have to suffer and die in order to test experimental drugs and chemicals. It is barbaric and wrong.


Arguments against the cruelty of Animal Testing 2/2
Replying to arguments raised by jonsonbrown in a personal message to me that animal testing is ethical since it is in the best interest to human beings. Just because something is in the best interest to humans, doesn't make it ethical. Animals should not have to suffer and die in order to test experimental drugs and chemicals. It is barbaric and wrong.
OnisionSpeaks a very famous youtuber who is against animal testing expressing his stance.

No Rape For The Willing
How is torturing unwilling animals wrong?
Yellow link means the site still works but the part of the site doesn't work anymore.
In the related sources why not testing on humans that we have negative values like serial rapists, murderers, people on death row and like people facing crimes against humanity. (source)
Animal testing alternatives information:
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/12/scientific-alternatives-to-animal-tes...
http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/ask/12
In conclusion pro-animal testing labs do not care for human well being. They are governmentally funded and they make a lot of profit. They lie about animal testing by claiming is good. They don't want to find the cure right away for diseases. Because sick people makes them rich. They get rich out of trying to treat sick people rather it works or fail. I am soo deathly sure the cure for cancer is out there but they don't want us to find it. If some guy has a herb based medicine that can cure cancer they wont let you approve its usages because they will lose a lot of money and putting the researchers out of business. Cure for many deadly diseases even AIDS exists in nature but they don't want to find it right away. They wanna use useless and ineffective animal testing to fail a lot of finding cures and making us the guinea pig. That is why in general the governments should NOT be trusted because they are profiters and cares nothing but money. They put money before health and lives of people. Why they don't ban tobacco companies in one shot when is killing soo many people? Because of money. Why they don't ban oil companies when is threatening our survival and, the health of us and Earth?? Because the answer is.... MONEY.

You will say what about animal testing to benefit animals?

Now about animal testing for benefiting animals only but NOT humans.
Example :
Like Tasmanian devils are suffering from this horrible disease called facial tumors which are threatening to wipe out the species within a few decades. The scientists quarantined the infected animal to ensure the disease doesn't ravage the healthy animals..
Also tumor is contagious. Cause of it is because of man introducing invasive species and the Tasmanian devils has no immunity to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease

Like they say something what if we use animal testing to help this marsupial called Tasmanian devil?
If is to save a species from extinction it would be the only exception to perform it.
Cancer spreads to last Tasmanian devil refuge
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/cancer-spreads-to-last-tasmanian-devil-refuge-20111108-1n5lr.html

So testing on animals should be used to help animals... NOT humans.
To help humans we should test on rapists, mass murderers, deathrow inmates and criminals against humanity.
Probably we should have the CURE for AIDS, cancer and other diseases if we would test on horrible human beings from the beginning. Animals and humans have different system. Check above that many drugs fails on us while it works on animals.
Proving further animal testing is a sham.
Stuff they used to put in toothpaste called diethylene glycol. It is less toxic to animals than humans.
Anyone saying animal testing should stay and or obsess on it should be used for medical research people like that do not deserve dignity because they're speciesist scumbags.
Source : (HERE)

Despite the discovery of DEG’s toxicity in 1937 and its involvement in mass poisonings around the world, the information available regarding human toxicity is limited. Some authors suggest the minimum toxic dose is estimated at 0.14 mg/kg of body weight and the lethal dose is between 1.0 and 1.63 g/kg of body weight, while some suggest the LD50 in adults is of ~1 mL/kg, and others suggest this is the LD30. Because of its adverse effects on humans, diethylene glycol is not allowed for use in food and drugs. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations allows no more than 0.2% of diethylene glycol in polyethylene glycol when the latter is used as a food additive. The Australian government does not allow DEG as a food additive; it is only allowed at less than 0.25% w/w of DEG as an impurity of polyethylene glycol (PEG) even in toothpaste.
Diethylene glycol has moderate acute toxicity in animal experiments. The LD50 for small mammals has been tested at between 2 and 25 g/kg, less toxic than its relative ethylene glycol, but still capable of causing toxicity in humans. It appears diethylene glycol is more hazardous to humans than implied by oral toxicity data in laboratory animals

Maybe if they would have tested diethylene glycol on mass murderers, rapists and or deathrow inmates people wouldn't suffer or get ill effects from diethylene glycol.
People who obsess on animal testing don't care for human lives, they care for profit it generates.
I have documented many people obsessing on animal test lovers, they don't care for people. They refuse to accept the true nature of animal testing such as failures and backfire of it causes serious health damage to people even death.


Mechanisms of toxicity
Based on available literature, scientists suggest unmetabolized DEG and HEAA are partially reabsorbed through glomerular filtration. As a consequence, the concentrations of the weak acid HEAA and metabolites may cause renal delay, leading to metabolic acidosis and further liver and kidney damage.

Symptoms
The symptoms of poisoning typically occur in three characteristic intervals:
First phase: Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, develop. Some patients may develop early neurological symptoms like altered mental status, central nervous system depression, coma and mild hypotension.
Second phase: In one to three days after ingestion (and dependent on dose ingested), patients develop metabolic acidosis, which causes acute kidney failure, oliguria, increasing serum creatinine concentrations, and later anuria. Other symptoms reported and secondary to acidosis and/or renal failure are: hypertension, tachycardia, cardiac dysrhythmia, pancreatitis, hyperkalemia or mild hyponatremia.
Final phase: At least five to 10 days after ingestion, most of the symptoms are related to neurological complications, such as: progressive lethargy, facial paralysis, dysphonia, dilated and nonreactive pupils, quadriplegia, and coma leading to death.


Treatment
Although it is not an approved procedure and no studies support successful removal of DEG, patients are subject to hemodialysis once diagnosis is made. Hemodialysis might be administered alone or with ethanol or fomepizole, which are competitive inhibitors of the enzyme NAD-dependent alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH):
With no medication: the low molecular weight and little or no plasma protein binding suggest DEG should be removed through this method.
With fomepizole: an ADH inhibitor with 8,000 times more affinity than ethanol, this treatment has minimal adverse effects because of constant serum concentration. However, it is a very expensive medication (approximately $3,000 U.S. dollars per treatment).
With ethanol: ethanol is an ADH inhibitor used when fomepizole is not available. A constant high blood concentration of ethanol should be maintained to acceptably saturate the enzyme, which can cause ethanol intoxication. To avoid this adverse effect, frequent serum monitoring and dosage adjustment is necessary.
For late diagnosis where ethanol or fomepizole is ineffective, because DEG has already been metabolized, hemodialysis becomes the only treatment available.

Prognosis
The prognosis depends on prompt diagnosis and treatment due to the high mortality rate DEG intoxication produces. Patients who survive but develop renal failure remain dialysis-dependent. All patients are likely to suffer significant morbidity.

My stance on animal testing
I totally condemn animal testing, We have rapists, mass murderers life in prison get a better life than animal in labs, why not use these horrible human beings instead?. Some people with a miserable life will abuse the system and commit a horrible crime to go life in jail and get a better life. Plus they get free healthcare, free dental care (everyone's dream to have free dentist). While everyday people have to struggle. Animals that never done anything wrong as rapists, mass murderers and crime against humanity get a miserable life by being tested against their will. While these losers get a better life in jail. Some country will execute them while some don't. More in the future we get, better life prisoners get.
People that truly deserves to be used for drugs and chemical testing.
Shoko Asahara.
Charles Manson.
Mark David Chapman.
Anders Behring Breivik.
James Holmes
.
And many more horrible criminals like these murderous criminals.
What disgust me the most is if someone murders, rape or do other horrible thing and spend life in prison we have to pay OUR tax money to feed these scumbags. It cost a LOT of money to keep ONE prisoner alive and well, Imagine overcrowded prisons and etc how much money it cost. We would save LOTS of money and lives if we use criminals horrible like these 5 people for drugs and or chemical testing. Plus probably crimerate would crash because people would be too scared to be the guinea pig against their will which they do not deserve a will nor dignity. We would say "THIS IS WHAT WE DO TO HORRIBLE PEOPLE".

Inmate boasts of 'luxury' life in prison

Source : (HERE)
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent

3:21PM BST 28 Apr 2008

Donal Kelleher, 37, an inmate at HMP Cardiff, said that his en suite accommodation was "outstanding" and disclosed that he was paid £10 a week to study for a maths GCSE which he spends on cigarettes, chocolate and "other luxury goods".

A prison officer who has worked at Cardiff for 15 years said last week that inmates were simply sitting in their cells watching snooker on television or playing computer games.

He added that a new health care centre put local hospitals "to shame" and made it easier to see a dentist than on the "outside". The extraordinary claims were made after T he Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that a prison officers' leader said jails had become so comfortable that some inmates were ignoring chances to escape.

Glyn Travis, the assistant general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said the latest disclosure confirmed his fears and that "we need to address the root of what prisons are all about".

Kelleher, a former Welsh Guard, stabbed his wife Leanne seven times in the chest and back after she told him she was leaving him. He was jailed in 2005.