veggo_dude said:
In fact, a vast majority of animals used in biomedical and/or cosmetic research are fully conscious when they are tested on. Administering anaesthetic, pain killers or sedation in a lot of tests can affect research outcomes, and because of this, the animals are not given anything to ease their suffering. Also for people who think animal testing is worthy, have a read below:


Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.

At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.

When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.

Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.

According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.

40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.

Over 200, 000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organization, 240 medicines are "essential".

Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.

Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.

When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.

At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.

Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.

95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.

One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.

Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.

The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.

We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.

Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.

Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3, 000 deaths in the USA.

Heart by pa** surgery was put on hold for years because it didn't work on dogs.

If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don't need vitamin C, that smoking doesn't cause cancer and alcohol doesn't cause liver damage.

It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn't in animals.

Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.

As one researcher points out, "the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

jeanettesianrachel said:
inted of testing on defencceless animals for their medical testing,why not use the prisoners on death row,there are there waiting to die and surely testing on another person would give truer facts than doing it on a animal,it may seem harsh to some people but these people have committed terriable crimes in their life and there just waiting to die,it would save millions of pounds cos they wont have to pay so much money cos the testing lab can pay for their human guinea pig all the times that they live.

jeanettesianrachel said:
inted of testing on defencceless animals for their medical testing,why not use the prisoners on death row,there are there waiting to die and surely testing on another person would give truer facts than doing it on a animal,it may seem harsh to some people but these people have committed terriable crimes in their life and there just waiting to die,it would save millions of pounds cos they wont have to pay so much money cos the testing lab can pay for their human guinea pig all the times that they live.

jeanettesianrachel said:
inted of testing on defencceless animals for their medical testing,why not use the prisoners on death row,there are there waiting to die and surely testing on another person would give truer facts than doing it on a animal,it may seem harsh to some people but these people have committed terriable crimes in their life and there just waiting to die,it would save millions of pounds cos they wont have to pay so much money cos the testing lab can pay for their human guinea pig all the times that they live.

matterdaddy84 said:
Please say that you are joking. You don't really want to test a potentially harmful drug on another human being just because of their past deeds, do you?

That seems like insanity to me. They are still human beings no matter what they did. To test expieramental anything on them would make you just as much of a monster as they were.

Nazi Germany tested drugs and other "cutting edge" medical practices on their death row inmates during WW2.

I say long live animal testing. In the big scheme of things, it doesn't really matter what happens to the lab animals, so long as it benefits humanity in the end.

shadowy said:
Why are humans more important than animals?

shadowy said:
Why are humans more important than animals?

andii said:
Humans are not more important than animals,