YAY!!Lets Kill Animals!!YAY

[Clogz]

Find someone who will...

Let people rub shampoo in thier eyes

take doses of cancer so doctors can test cures

get infected with AIDS so doctors can try new medication

allow themselves to be exposed to radiation

Basically, my question is, what the heck do we test this stuff on? Ourselves? Yeah right. In two seconds, human rights activists would be all over it. All over it, just like stem cell research. So they use animals, which is definitly safer from not only a legal perspective but a humane one.

Ever heard of Joseph Mengele? That is what happens when they test this stuff out on people man. It is torture, it is inhuman, and most of the time it will probably have very negative results.

Animal testing is the lesser of two evils. Sorry, but its true.

 

[weeztones]

Most people believe that experiments on animals are necessary, but they are not. The medical research establishment, pharmaceutical companies, other industries and a sizeable public relations machine keep this belief alive. Why? Because lab animal study safeguards industry against legal responsibility and is hugely profitable, from a financial point of view only.

............

It is not precise to call these human-based techniques “alternatives to animal experimentation.” Mistakenly, that term implies that past medical achievements necessarily relied on lab animals. A true reading of medicine’s history reveals our past and present reliance on non-animal methods.

Niiiiiiiiiiiice copy and paste job!

There is absolutely NO way you wrote that yourself.

 

[woodyloveslinkin]

If i wasn't hungry, i wouldn't have thrown up in this thread. But seeing i am, im going to throw up on the person above me.

BLERGG

 

[weeztones]

If i wasn't hungry, i wouldn't have thrown up in this thread. But seeing i am, im going to throw up on the person above me.
BLERGG

Above you? Is somebody teabagging you?

 

[stupidsoul1]

it depends what they are testing it on.....

but im kind of in the middle..

 

[woodyloveslinkin]

i wasn't about to throw up on SS1 whom i thought was going to be after me.

no, this makes me sick on a empty stomach

 

[Rusu_luvs_LP_4ever]

Find someone who will...Let people rub shampoo in thier eyes

take doses of cancer so doctors can test cures

get infected with AIDS so doctors can try new medication

allow themselves to be exposed to radiation

Basically, my question is, what the heck do we test this stuff on? Ourselves? Yeah right. In two seconds, human rights activists would be all over it. All over it, just like stem cell research. So they use animals, which is definitly safer from not only a legal perspective but a humane one.

Ever heard of Joseph Mengele? That is what happens when they test this stuff out on people man. It is torture, it is inhuman, and most of the time it will probably have very negative results.

Animal testing is the lesser of two evils. Sorry, but its true.

I'd volunteer but they'd never take me cos I'm human

 

[LPGotLinkinPark]

If people volunteer to be tested on, how is inhuman? It's just like those other scientific studies, just more deadly.

 

[Clogz]

Really? That is great! I've been wanting to test this new hair dye out on someone. It will be all the rage if it works! Could you tell me where you live, so I can come and have you try it in a controlled setting.

Oh yes, and I apoligize if it goes wrong and it eats holes in your scalp or if your hair falls out, or it gives you some kind of cancer that causes you to go blind, or gives you early Alzhiemers, but hey! What can you do? We have to save the animals from pain, don't we?

Hurt people, not animals! Especially if the people say okay!

**to avoid misunderstanding, this post is incredibly sarcastic and I'm making a point.

 

[LPGotLinkinPark]

I would never volunteer but some people like to for the sake of science.

 

[azemkamikaze03]

Really? That is great! I've been wanting to test this new hair dye out on someone. It will be all the rage if it works! Could you tell me where you live, so I can come and have you try it in a controlled setting.Oh yes, and I apoligize if it goes wrong and it eats holes in your scalp or if your hair falls out, or it gives you some kind of cancer that causes you to go blind, or gives you early Alzhiemers, but hey! What can you do? We have to save the animals from pain, don't we?

Hurt people, not animals! Especially if the people say okay!

**to avoid misunderstanding, this post is incredibly sarcastic and I'm making a point.

That is true. I would rather hurt a animal. It is survival of the fittest(or the smartest). But now we have more, computerized ways to solve these problems. There are programs that can tell you about enzymes and other **** like that. I guess im bending my opion but I think animals are needed to test some things. but some of the **** they do to animals is unnessary and usually thoes animals die for a lost cuase. Plus when animals are introduced to stressful behavior(which happens when your locked up in some strang place with your brains oozing out) Results will be diffrent..like on the Movie Saw Dr.Gordon was calmn and wise thinking but when he thought his wife was going to die, he sawed of his leg. I guess you could say kind of the same of thing.

 

[ImTheOneThatFalls]

That is true. I would rather hurt a animal. It is survival of the fittest(or the smartest). But now we have more' date=' computerized ways to solve these problems. There are programs that can tell you about enzymes and other **** like that. I guess im bending my opion but I think animals are needed to test some things. but some of the **** they do to animals is unnessary and usually thoes animals die for a lost cuase. Plus when animals are introduced to stressful behavior(which happens when your locked up in some strang place with your brains oozing out) Results will be diffrent..like on the Movie Saw Dr.Gordon was calmn and wise thinking but when he thought his wife was going to die, he sawed of his leg. I guess you could say kind of the same of thing.[/quote']ugh poor animals

 

[Clogz]

A computer analyzing the situation from Saw would not have predicted Dr. Gordon sawing his leg off. In the same way, computers are flawed in the fact they are completely linear. The last thing I want to do is try anything a computer told me was safe. Computers, metaphorically, see 2-D in a 3-D world, and I don't think that is an accurate way to look at anything.

 

[azemkamikaze03]

Niiiiiiiiiiiice copy and paste job!
There is absolutely NO way you wrote that yourself.

Uhh im making a speech for english! I stole some of the ideas yeah but basically its all my words. Just not all my ideas kid. Hey weez..arent you the guy that nobody really likes..specialy woody?

 

[Clogz]

Another thought -

If animal testing did not exist, we would most definitly not have chemotherpay, which has saved *** knows how many lives from cancer. I mean, who would have volunteered to have radiation shot into thier bodies? Not me.

 

[azemkamikaze03]

"Computer Clues

A more high-tech approach is to use computers to simulate an enzyme or other drug target and to design chemical structures that might work against it. Enzymes work when they attach to the correct site on a cell's membrane. A computer can show scientists what the receptor site looks like and how one might tailor a compound to block an enzyme from attaching there.

Nevertheless, "computers give chemists clues to which compounds to make, but they don't give any final answers,'' says Kuntzman. "You still have to put any compound you made based on a computer [simulation] into a biological system to see if it works."

Yet a third approach involves testing compounds made naturally by microscopic organisms. Candidates include fungi, viruses and molds, such as those that led to penicillin and other antibiotics. Scientists grow the microorganisms in what they call a fermentation broth, one type of organism per broth. Sometimes 100,000 or more broths are tested to see whether any compound made by a microorganism has a desirable effect.

"In the search for a new cholesterol drug, scientists found a fungus that inhibited the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme in a test tube. Chemists then had to identify which of the fungus' dozens of chemical byproducts was actually inhibiting the enzyme. Once that was done, the chemical's structure was analyzed and improved on to enhance its effects.

To this point, the search for a new drug has been confined to a laboratory test tube. Next, scientists have to test those compounds that have shown at least some desired effects in living animals. ''We have to find what the drug is doing on the down side,"

Kuntzman explains. "

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/begin.html

 

[azemkamikaze03]

but i totally agree w/ you Clogz on the chemo thang

 

[Clogz]

Um, that a whole thing basically proved that while computers help, they are still simply a technicality and a luxury. The real testing went on with the animals, they just decided to cut some of it short with computers. Testing the animals is still totally necessary.

Computers are machines, and thus they can't be accurate measure for taking over animal testing.

 

[azemkamikaze03]

Yeah I know I just found it

 

[linkinpark-1]

I'm fine with testing on lab rats and stuff, I'm not so much for monkeys or animal with much intellegence. They have to test it on something that would have the same affect as it would on a person, and of course you couldn't test a real person. As long as im the one not doing the dirty work, i guess im ok with it.