-----
/ o o \
====OO=====OO===
http://pnews.org/
Progressive News & Views (since 1982)
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: Zachary Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5
From Charles: "My point is that in a culture of cruelty animal testing
is simply part of the superstructure of life in it's most mundane."
I suppose you're right, but it also depends on how you've been
conditioned (or choose) to live your life. I prefer to live mine
compassionately. How will we ever end the culture of cruelty if we go
on blindly accepting what we know is wrong?
From SPEAK UK:
"Unscientific - Unsafe
One of the biggest preconceptions concerning animal research is that
human illnesses can be studied in another species. In reality, diseases
vary from species to species.
Sometimes experimenters try to recreate some of the symptoms, and they
may be able to get cases where it looks similar, but that's hardly
science. Out of all illnesses known to humanity, less than 2% of them
are ever seen in any non-human animal. It's a problem they still haven't
overcome.
The scientific director of Huntingdon Life Sciences
<http://www.shac.net>, one of the biggest drug and product testing labs
in the world has estimated that the accuracy of using animals to predict
the human effect is "between 5%-25%".
So to be generous to him, in three times out of four we get a false
result which is then used to decide whether the product is used in humans.
And the results of this reliance on vivisection?
The human cost is massive.
Birth defects: They occurred in about 3 in 100,000 live births in the
late 1940s, by the end of the century there were over 800 per 100,000.
The most in-depth study to date, by German doctors concluded 61% of
birth defects and 88% of stillbirths were definitely, directly caused by
animal experiments. Animal testing is incapable of predicting this
catastrophe.
Deaths and serious injuries: In 1998 an American medical journal
concluded that 106,000 deaths PER YEAR in the US alone were caused by
medical drugs passed safe on animals. A UK medical journal estimated
70,000 people in England each year are killed or seriously disabled by
medical drugs, yet all of these pass animal tests. The scale is
undeniably massive.
Vivisection continues for two main reasons.
One is the drug industry. It allows drugs to be approved quickly, and
because animals give a variety of results, it virtually guarantees entry
onto the marked where it is earning money. It also provides an obstacle
to legal action when drugs go wrong, because with animal tests
performed, negligence becomes hard to prove.
The other is that it's so easy to publish. "A rat is an animal which
when injected produces a paper" as the saying goes, which means easy
work in this 'publish or perish' scientific world. Clinical research is
infinitely more valuable, but requires ingenuity, planning, people
skills, and time. Anyone can do animal experiments - they may not give
useful results but at least they're results.
Opposition to vivisection on medical grounds is growing, and is in
direct proportion to awareness of the facts. The more people know about
vivisection, the less they like it. It's a massive subject, but you
don't need to be a professor to understand it."
> -----
> / o o \
> ====OO=====OO===
> http://pnews.org/
> Progressive News & Views (since 1982)
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> From: Charles Stegiel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Satire is lost on the internet. I might infer from
> your post that due to animal tests being
> unreliable-though I doubt the high velocity bullet
> testsare unreliable-human subjects might take their
> place. And I do not doubt that in Gitmo and Iraq and
> elsewhere medical experiments funded by US labs, or
> drug companies, or scietists on contracts with the
> government, are occuring. My point is that in a
> culture of cruelty animal testing is simply part of
> the superstructure of life in it's most mundane.
>>
>
>> From: Zachary Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Necessary how? The physiology of humans and the animals that are tested
>> on are different. How does that make for a reliable experiment. If we'd
>> stop putting chemicals and toxins in the things we put in/on our bodies
>> and on the Earth, we wouldn't need so much testing. Zachary Johnson
>>
>
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
M A I L I N G L I S T S
(1) pnews-news - NEWS mailing list - (text only)
Send "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as subject
----> pnews-news-request(at)inyourface.info
=======================================================
(2) pnews-views - VIEWS mailing list- (text only)
OPEN discussion - "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" as subj
Send to ------> pnews-views-request(at)inyourface.info
=======================================================
(3) fightback - articles and pointers distribution list
(html/text) - expert informed opin., credentialed authors
----> http://pnews.org/dada/
========================================================
(4) ATTN: WEBMASTERS - Link Exchange/improve site rank
----> links_only-subscribe(at)googlegroups.com - or, go to:
-----> http://groups.google.com/group/Links_Only
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
