The Animal Liberation Front should be listed as a proscribed terrorist group

There really is no need for vivesection anymore. Computer models have eradicated the need for it, and it’s those that are involved in it that perpetuate it.

show me the computer model that details all of of the biochemical interactions in a single cell let alone a complex organism

either you massively overestimate the current scientific knowledgebase or you have absolutely no idea of how complex biology is

and why on earth would penicillin never have been granted a license, it would have taken longer to get through the approval process of course but its just as effective in animals as in humans???

did anyone see horizon last night? gene therapy for cystic fibrosis suferers, a treatment for a previously incurable form of breast cancer- developed where i work and animal testing was an essential part of the therapy development

id assume that all you die hard anti-vivesectionists would turn down a blood transfusion, after all that was developed using animals
or not use most of the products in your chemist
or turn down chemotherapy or stop diabetics from using insulin or deny your children any such drugs

especially given todays furore over a nice, but overall unspectacular stag that was starting to go back anyway…

If that was a ref to the Exmoor Emperor (on the other thread)… I don’t have a problem with humane despatch & proper culling. And, needless to say, I love venison.

But there seems to be an increasing number of idiot shooters roaming around. And I despise that kind of trophy bagging, tbh.

Don’t you think blood transfusion is a poor example to support your argument when animal experiments delayed the discovery of blood groups and successful human transfusions by 200 years ?

I haven’t got any children, but if I did I would be happy to deny them the use of methoxyflurane, Flosint, Zelmid, Nomifensine, Amrinone, Clioquinol, and, of course, thalidomide amongst other drugs, all of which proved near harmless in animals, but harmful, or fatal to humans.

Pheasants are not native to these parts. Himalayan IIRC. Just a fancy chicken anyway.

TJ, strictly speaking, humans are not native to these parts either. Arrived by migration etc.

😉

humans are not native to these parts either

Blooming immigrants, coming over here, taking our ecological niche.

wow you managed to list 7 drugs that werent successful in trials i cant list all the ones that worked because there are thousands of them!

absolute rubbish without animal trials there would be no blood transfusions lowers transfusion from 1 dog to another in the C17 led to him trying it on a human a year later
and there would be no rhesus factor knowledge if people hadnt been using rhesus monkeys

so would you turn down a transfusion?
or a life saving cancer drug?

I only listed 7 because I haven’t got all day.

http://www.vivisectioninformation.com again…

92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

CaptainFlashheart – Member

TJ, strictly speaking, humans are not native to these parts either. Arrived by migration etc.

Does that man we can hunt them? 😕

There are a lot of medical scientists who believe that animal testing is no longer of any great use

TJ, at the risk of feeding your argumentative tendencies, can you explain to me how an organisation that sought to terrorise me/my colleagues (through illegal means I might add) is not a terrorist organisation?

You see, I don’t think you get it. I was genuinely scared – when a policeman is recommending that you fit toughened glass to the front of the house, get your mail sent to a PO box etc, you tend to worry. And I take great offence to the idea that these people aren’t terrorists, and are somehow slightly cuddlier-than-the average lout.

still havent answered my question…………..

There are a lot of medical scientists who believe that animal testing is no longer of any great use

As I said before TJ – there are a lot of medical scientists that believe in homeopathy, and there’s a fairly big bunch of scientists who still believe in global warming 😉

I mean, if you wanted I’m pretty sure I could go out there and find you a bunch of qualified scientists that believe the earth is flat, let alone the number of scientists I could present to you who claim religious faith…

92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

Even assuming that statistic is true it’s the wrong one. You need to compare it to the proportion of drugs which would fail human tests in the absence of animal tests. Similarly for all other comparisons- the proportion of passes/fails is irrelevant, it’s the difference between what the figures would be with and without animal testing that matters.

Nickf – its about how you define terrorism. There is a definition in the terrorism act quoted early on but it is unclear at best if the ALF would qualify under that definition. Draw up a definition that the ALF would clearly fall into and many other groups could as well such as the BNP or the EDL.

I will accept however that I was clearly only being argumentative for the sake of it.

I have to say that the dangers of the ALF seem to me to be exaggerated by the establishment.

This is not to deny your real and perhaps well founded fear fear.

as sas says graham you have a massive failure of understandng of what medical research entails
and that statistic does indeed have a whiff of BS about it

but overall unspectacular stag that was starting to go back anyway…

The 9ft stag which was the largest wild animal in the UK? If thats what you call unspectacular then we have some pretty sh1t wildlife in this country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/8086983/Animal-giants-A-round-up-of-some-of-the-worlds-biggest-animals.html
Looked pretty impressive to me.

still havent answered my question………….

The one about the transfusion ?
Yes, I would, because it is a proven medical practice that works on humans. I wouldn’t refuse it just because it’s use was delayed for 200 years by people trying to use dog’s blood in humans.
I wear a helmet on my bike. I wouldn’t stop wearing it as a matter of principle if I found out it had been tested on animals.

Would you avoid aspirin because it can be fatal to cats ?
Would you use thalidomide because it is harmless to animals ?

and that statistic does indeed have a whiff of BS about it

It’s from Nature. They’re normally pretty thorough about checking the accuracy of their articles.
What would you say was the percentage of drugs passed by animal tests which immediately failed when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.

Would you avoid aspirin because it can be fatal to cats ?

Its fatal to humans too, and the mode of harm is the same – its all about dosage! Water is fatal to humans in certain dosages, we used to give people arsenic as a medical treatment – much of the science of cancer therapy is the use of poison.

The thing you need to realise is that in testing you don’t go ‘oops, didnt work, throw it away’ you go away and find out what a drug does and then try to understand the mechanism behind why you have found that symptom.

Would you use thalidomide because it is harmless to animals ?

No, its not – one of the greatest misunderstandings in the ‘rights’ movement has been what actually happened with thalidomide, it was never tested on pregnant animals! If anything its proof of not enough testing – the testing regime that drugs now go through would have identified the problems encountered with Thalidomide – at the time they simply did not realise that a drug could be a harmless to an adult whilst being a potent Teratogen, so they simply did not test for the possibility.

No there aren’t. Homoeopathy cannot be proven to be effective by scientific method. So by definition there cannot be scientists who believe in homoeopathy.

TJ you haven’t a clue what your on about pheasant taste nothing like chicken 😉

id say it was a misleading statistic (do you actually have a journal reference?)
testing a drug on an animal that doesnt work in humans is still a positive result infact a lot of animal testing doent lead directly to any drug its about understanding a specific process or biochemical recation, all of this information is then fed back in to future experiments

and you are wrong blood transfusions are only safe because they were developed using animals, rhesus factor etc, and iirc it was sheep blood in human and 150 years later dog experiments it moved on to humans in 6months

i love the way your ignorance of scientific fact allows you to justify your own hypocrisy
(though i can understand that you are confused after reading some of the out of context misinformation on the site you posted)

and as z11 said thalidomide is indeed harmless to humans, infact its been shown to prevent angiogenisis in lung cancers
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/thalidomide-and-lung-cancer

thalidomide is a classic example of not enough animal testing being done