We Need Animal Testing
-
-
- JohnnyLambe
- added this
-
- groups:
- On Current TV, Animal Videos and News, Intro, Outro, 1 more
-
- tags:
- On Current TV, Animal Videos and News, Protest, Intro, 3 more
-
-
heatherpierce
-
I don't think I'll ever understand why people like this will put time and energy to ensure that animal cruelty will continue. I understand that the purpose isn't to promote animal cruelty, but our systems are so different from other animals that most things approved for them don't work on us anyway - so that it turns into a whole bunch of suffering with very little progress. Throwing away a million animal lives to solve medical problems is senseless.
It's much more effective to get to the root of our illnesses: fast-paced stress-filled lives, very little preventative health care, pollution that comes from not living sustainably and locally, pesticides, and ingesting organ-damaging foods (meats, dairy, too much of anything, et cetera.)
- 2 years ago
-
heatherpierce
-
-
UnDeAdPoPe
-
I truly disagree with the statement of the human to rat ratio,the fact you hold a human right to live(not saying every animal tested on is going to die but it is one of the possibly outcomes) over a animals is horrible(no I don't eat meat I am veggie and only not a vegan for health reasons) why do you hold yourself higher? just because you know what the plant around you is and what water is made of?
evolution has been kind us,that doesn't mean we have right to do what ever the hell we like to whatever(unless their human) we like.
- 3 years ago
-
UnDeAdPoPe
-
-
London_Prophet
-
Rodreegez, were they causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage by blowing things up in order to get your lunch money?
- 4 years ago
-
London_Prophet
-
-
Owenmor
-
Rodreegez, you may have a point. Scientists tend to be a rather reserved and sensible bunch and tend to be less able to deal with aggressive opponents than politicians or journalists, and the tendency of scientists to reject any kind of community spirit as being contrary to the ideal of independent thought doesn''t help. However you must credit Pro-Test with doing its best to change this situation, with considerable success in the UK.
As to the science, well the fact that every major professional organization representing scientists and medical researchers that has taken a position on animal research (and that''s most of them) is in favour of it is a powerful argument that animal research is vital to medical progress. To say that the medical researchers are divided on animal testing is a like saying that climate scientists are divided on climate change.
So called "scientific anti-vivisection" is based on distortion, misrepresentation and quoting scientists out of context. A quick look at the RDS website, which demolishes many anti-viv claims, should be enough to persuade you of the dishonesty of anti-viv propaganda.
link - 4 years ago
-
Owenmor
-
-
emmaoverton
-
What a biased programme - most of the contributors were pro animal testing, with only one contributor (who was only featured briefly) being against. It was totally unconvincing, ignoring both the weight of medical evidence which doesn''t support animal testing, and the scientists who don''t either.
- 4 years ago
-
emmaoverton
-
-
rodreegez
-
I recon there is a pretty good argument for animal testing, but this was not it... If you want to try and put a controversial topic like this across, at least try and give a fair and balanced argument rather than take a holier than though attitude to us common folk. And the reason you feel intimidated on campus is the same as the reason you had your lunch money stolen at school. sorry, but it is. x
- 4 years ago
-
rodreegez
-
