quote:

Originally posted by Rob321:

If you are so compassionate about making new drugs for your fellow humans then why not offer yourself so these new drugs can be tested on? But no you wouldn’t do that would you? So if you wouldn’t do it to yourself then why make animals do your dirty work?



Stop The Oxford Lab

More info at

http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk

THATS THE ANSWER! all anti-viv activists should volunteer to replace the animals in animal experiments! You'd be saving the lives of millions of animals!!

No seriously, Rob123, and all the other anti-viv peeps, that would solve every thing wouldn't it?

did anyone see the comment on the show by that american animal 'person'(the one who was banned from entering the UK), he'd rather see a child die than an animal, think prorities are a bit'Mad'(polite way of putting it)

But its you who wants the drugs not me so lets test them on you. so you used animal tested drugs to save your life. what are you scared of dieing is that why you was so quick to use them? can’t face the end coming so soon?

Sunny

Get it correct i am pretty sure what he said was if it was a child in absolute comfort and an animal in discomfort he would always choose the animal.

Why should we volunteer for drug testing? There are people who already do. We have already outlined alternatives. It wouldn't end vivisection. That has to come from legislation, which is what we want to see happen. Of course, when drug companies can buy polititians, it will not be easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob321:
But its you who wants the drugs not me so lets test them on you. so you used animal tested drugs to save your life. what are you scared of dieing is that why you was so quick to use them? can’t face the end coming so soon?

What if you or a loved one needed the drug. Would you sacrifice your grandma for a mouse if she needed a drug that would alleviate the symptoms of alzheimers?

Dude. If you think the human race is ever going to reach a point where we consider a human life to be replaceable by an animal life you're sadly mistaken... (and slightly warped)

quote:

Originally posted by MartinGBUK:
Why should we volunteer for drug testing? There are people who already do.

I didn't say drug testing. I said experiments. Volunteer to replace the animals in the initial experiments. The one where a the basic functioning of a system that fails during a disease is being studied. It is these experiments that lead to the initial suggestion that a certain compound MIGHT alleviate the symptoms of the disease. It is at this point that drugs are made from that compound and tested.

Honestly, you'd be saving the lives of millions of animals and humans alike! Thats sure to get you into anti-viv heaven right?

A-D, if the experiment is to test the basic functioning of a system that fails during a disease is to be tested, people with that disease or those prone to it should be tested. Or dead human bodies kept on life support.

quote:

Posted 14-01-06 23:43
But its you who wants the drugs not me so lets test them on you. so you used animal tested drugs to save your life.

Well I'm pretty sure you'd be screaming out for those drugs if you found out you had a life threatening illness. If you don't, then are you saying your life is less important than an animal? If that is the case, you are very much in the minority.

quote:

Why should we volunteer for drug testing? There are people who already do.

Only after the drugs have been tested on animals to make sure they are 99% safe.. a person is much more likely to test a drug if they know most side effects, and the deadly ones will have been picked up in animals first.


Yes some people who have a life threatening illness will test some drugs but that is a very few and they will only test the drugs that may help then to live a bit longer!

If there was a safe way of testing drugs without using animals then believe me, they would be using it. Animals are very expensive to buy, you have to go through rigorous checks and safety measure and lots fo paperwork. It's not easy to test on animals in this country compared with others.

MartinGBUK - I think you should get this idea of using humans on life support out of your head. It is difficult enough for families to decide when the should switch off a machine supporting a loved-ones life. This idea that the human is still effectiviely alive and being used for research is absurd. What if they eventually wake-up again, there's always that chance. The ones who can never wake up but are on life-support are very rare.

quote:

Originally posted by MartinGBUK:
A-D, if the experiment is to test the basic functioning of a system that fails during a disease is to be tested, people with that disease or those prone to it should be tested. Or dead human bodies kept on life support.

Nah. It sounds to me like you're copping out. If you care that much about these animals then why don't you take their place? Its a simple question! That goes for Rob123 also.

quote:

Only after the drugs have been tested on animals to make sure they are 99% safe.. a person is much more likely to test a drug if they know most side effects, and the deadly ones will have been picked up in animals first.

yeah thats why adverse reactions to drugs are the fourth biggest killer in the world

quote:

yeah thats why adverse reactions to drugs are the fourth biggest killer in the world

um, that's complete and utter nonsense. Please post proof to back that statement up or retract your nonsense comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob321:

yeah thats why adverse reactions to drugs are the fourth biggest killer in the world

That IS utter bol***ks and I'm pretty sure he made that up. But if is true, we can stop this atrocity by replacing all the animals in animal experiments with anti-viv activists.

I can find no official statistics to support his claim. The closest is a study which counted the number of people in hospital who suffered from ADRs, which is completely different to the total number of deaths in the world (which is what he is claiming).

ADRs don't even make it into the top 20 reasons for death in the world.

He said it was drug abuse. So I think included in all these ADRs are people who have died overdosing on illegal drugs.

Rather than replacing the animals in the labs I would prefer all the anti-vivs to get together and have an intelligent chat and come up with an alternative to using animals. An alternative that will offer more benefits than we get now. Perhaps they can even provide the service. Seeing as theyre the only ones who know about these much better methods.

Instead of using all their efforts to stop progress and put people out of work and abuse those that have the decency to go to work at all. They should come up with a competitive alternative that the pharmas could use. They might make a packet!

Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute believes we have lost cures for cancer because they were not effective in mice - "we have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply doesn't work in humans".

2.3 There is an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest that animal research is at best unreliable, and at worst potentially dangerous to humans. Indeed, an estimated 70,000 people are injured or killed by adverse reactions from their animal tested medications every year in England alone. The British Medical Journal have recently released a report stating that at least 10,000 people are actually killed by prescription medicines in the UK each year. The US figure is over 100,000 - side effects from drugs are now the fourth biggest killer in the western world.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2004/04%20Au...Animal%20Testing.htm

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
I can find no official statistics to support his claim. The closest is a study which counted the number of people in hospital who suffered from ADRs, which is completely different to the total number of deaths in the world (which is what he is claiming).

ADRs don't even make it into the top 20 reasons for death in the world.

There are many references to ADR's in the medical literature, because iatrogenic (Dr induced) illness and death are a massive problem.

AND for your information, when he agreed with you earlier when you suggested he was talking about ADR's for recreational drug use, he was joking!

He was talking about legitimate therapeutic administration of prescription only medications, properly prescribed, in correct dose, timing, route of administration, and appropriate for the patient and the condition treated. Not balls-ups, not accidental overdoses, just major adverse drug reactions.

ADR's are frequent. Major ADR's are frequent. Fatal ADR's are frequent.

Death is listed as a potential side effect of just about every drug in the formulary.

There is plenty of evidence because there are systems in place in every developed country to monitor clinical effects and ADR's. Here in the UK its called the 'yellow card system'.

And yes, it is widely reported, and in fact in the Green Party's literature, that ADR's are the fourth biggest killer in the western world.

It is also reported in that fly-by-night publication the British Medical Journal that AT LEAST 10,000 people are actually killed by prescription medicines in the UK alone every year.

Are you seriously suggesting that the BMJ made that up? Or the Green Party? Get real!

You keep throwing accusations around about AV's telling a stack of lies, that there is no evidence to be found anywhere to support the things said here, but where is YOUR evidence eh?

We have given you loads of links, loads of information; we have argued our side of this logically and reasonably. WE have made sense, when you don't seem to be able to argue anything other than 'you're all a bunch of liars '

quote:

You keep throwing accusations around about AV's telling a stack of lies, that there is no evidence to be found anywhere to support the things said here, but where is YOUR evidence eh?

I already posted the facts in another thread.

For your reading :- http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mot1203.pdf <--official UK Government statistics on causes of death. Over half a million deaths in 2002, so your 10,000 people dieing from ADRs accounts for 1.8% - hardly a major killer.

Similarly http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm shows official US Government statistics, which again confirm that ADRs are not a major killer.

Thanks for playing.

I think ADRs are pointless to discuss too. Most are overdoses and also allergic reactions. It is still hard for scientists to say that Ecstasy is a killer. The people who died whilst on it had taken other drugs too and had died because of their actions whilst on the drug rather than the drug itself.

Paracetamol is very easy to overdose on. Also if you are dehydrated, a chemical can increase its potency in the body. People are allergic to drugs without knowing it.

I don't think ADRs can be used to argue against vivisection.