PDA

View Full Version : Oxford resumes work on animal lab



Pages : [1] 2

Exedous
30-11--2005, 05:38 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4485158.stm


Oxford University has resumed building work on its controversial new laboratory complex on South Parks Road.


Construction work on the biomedical facility had been halted in July 2004 after a sustained campaign of protest from animal rights groups.
The building contractor, Walter Lilly & Co, said its staff had been subjected to threats and intimidation.
The university has now engaged a new company and work on the £20m complex began early on Wednesday. Oxford said it was determined to finish the project, which is now well behind schedule.

matthew
30-11--2005, 05:58 PM
What is so controversial about it ?.

Dready Warrior
30-11--2005, 09:47 PM
What is so controversial about it ?.

they will be testing on animals there GRRR :mad:

matthew
30-11--2005, 09:53 PM
they will be testing on animals there GRRR :mad:



Thats not controversial.. just some people do not approve.

Dready Warrior
30-11--2005, 10:05 PM
Thats not controversial.. just some people do not approve.

i think you'll find that because some people don't agree that makes in controversial.

definition from oxford english dictionary:

1. disagreement on a matter of opinion
2. a prolonged argument or dispute esp. when conducted publicly

matthew
30-11--2005, 10:24 PM
i think you'll find that because some people don't agree that makes in controversial.

definition from oxford english dictionary:

1. disagreement on a matter of opinion
2. a prolonged argument or dispute esp. when conducted publicly

So me not thinking [or agreeing] it is controversial IS controversial .. ? wow i like being controversial [if thats what i am being].. :insane:

Exedous
30-11--2005, 10:42 PM
So me not thinking [or agreeing] it is controversial IS controversial .. ? wow i like being controversial [if thats what i am being].. :insane:


You being controversial??? Are ya are ya???

I'll give you controversial...how's about using some of those low life's for testing, after all its being used on humans......

Ooooo this shoud get me either shot or barred......

Ghost

matthew
30-11--2005, 10:52 PM
You being controversial??? Are ya are ya???

I'll give you controversial...how's about using some of those low life's for testing, after all its being used on humans......

Ooooo this shoud get me either shot or barred......

Ghost

You won't get barred or shot..as i think those thoughts go through many peoples minds around here [not my mind though].

I once started a thread about relinquishing you right to treatment tested on animals.. would you consider that ?.

matthew
30-11--2005, 10:58 PM
Just to clarify: I meant the building of another facility of this nature is not controversial...i am :sleep:

Though just to be controversial.. i don't think animal testing is controversial anymore.. i might regret saying this.. :whistle:

ecomamma
30-11--2005, 11:02 PM
:madlol:

Exedous
30-11--2005, 11:44 PM
You won't get barred or shot..as i think those thoughts go through many peoples minds around here [not my mind though].

I once started a thread about relinquishing you right to treatment tested on animals.. would you consider that ?.

Yes and no, im an asthmatic, and as such i know that animals have probabaly been tested so i can breathe.

I know this, so, yes, i have "relinquished" my treatment, as in i have turned down pills that could help. Steroids make me ill.

Ghost

Joel
01-12--2005, 12:43 AM
most uni's do have testing facillities, its just part of our culture

plus theres nothing that will stop the pushing hand of capitolism...

Exedous
01-12--2005, 10:17 AM
most uni's do have testing facillities, its just part of our culture

plus theres nothing that will stop the pushing hand of capitolism...

Hmmm, thats not a defeatest attitude at all eh....

The fact that Oxford Uni, wont release the name of the new contactors..{for fear of perscution} shows that they are running scared. We have spent many years testing on animals, and yes ok, we may have had success, but it has come to a point now, that we have to stop. Use those f**ng low life scum, test f***ng make up/drugs ect on them. Yes i am aware thats what Hitler thought, and NO im not a nazi, i just believe, that they have done wrong, so we shoud utilise them.

An eye for an eye, if it burns the rabbit....

As for the that push ing hand of Capitalism, we have come n leaps and bounds, in the past we have won MANY wars, against "that lot". Yes we still live in a disgracefull state, BUT if ye dont keep knocking, you wont get in"

Ghost

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 10:25 AM
Sounds like a sad path you choose to follow sir.
How did you come to find yourself advocating the abuse of your fellow man? Shout as loud as you can at the injustices in the world but don't abandon your soul to rage.

Exedous
01-12--2005, 10:49 AM
Sounds like a sad path you choose to follow sir.
How did you come to find yourself advocating the abuse of your fellow man? Shout as loud as you can at the injustices in the world but don't abandon your soul to rage.

I wont, and have'nt, thot we have to shout loud to be heard above all the "injustice". Fellow man??? The one's that hurt and harm.....the scary ones??

Sorry but what's wrong with testing on humans, Y should it be acceeptable to test on creatures that wont USE the chemicals.


how did you come to find yourself advocating the abuse of your fellow man


I just feel its fairer to test a product on someone who deserves it, take from that what you will.

Humans can say no, animals cant, when they do, we dont listen.

Ghost

Atomik
01-12--2005, 10:55 AM
I just feel its fairer to test a product on someone who deserves it, take from that what you will.Hitler thought the Jews 'deserved' it. You can't fight evil by becoming evil yourself.

stardust
01-12--2005, 10:58 AM
it has always bothered me that it has been proven time and again that animals react differently to humans in these tests. one drug that harms a cat may make an ape psychotic and do god only knows what to a human.

scientists seem unable or unwilling to see that these tests are pointless and inacurate. the only accurate way to test how a human will react to something is to test it on a human.

i'm not advocating testing on prisoners and undesirables though. i think we need to carry on down the medical volunteers route. maybe some scientist who thinks he's god has already come up with fake human parts to test things on so that no animals or humans are involved.

peace and love
stardust
xxx

Exedous
01-12--2005, 10:59 AM
Hitler thought the Jews 'deserved' it. You can't fight evil by becoming evil yourself.

Ok, point taken, but with the prisons so overcrowded, isint it fair to give "those people" a fair chance, they would be doing thier bit for society. Fairs fair.

Ghost.

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 11:04 AM
Fellow man??? The one's that hurt and harm.....the scary ones??
I'm afraid so, not nice I know, but your sounding just as scary, hurting and harming.


Sorry but what's wrong with testing on humans, Y should it be acceeptable to test on creatures that wont USE the chemicals.

Nothing, but it should be a matter of consent not compulsion.

Exedous
01-12--2005, 11:05 AM
it has always bothered me that it has been proven time and again that animals react differently to humans in these tests. one drug that harms a cat may make an ape psychotic and do god only knows what to a human.

scientists seem unable or unwilling to see that these tests are pointless and inacurate. the only accurate way to test how a human will react to something is to test it on a human.

i'm not advocating testing on prisoners and undesirables though. i think we need to carry on down the medical volunteers route. maybe some scientist who thinks he's god has already come up with fake human parts to test things on so that no animals or humans are involved.

peace and love
stardust
xxx

Its ok to grow an ear, per say, onto a rodent, but mention testing on HUMANS and you get blasted....


If we can find some common ground, a way to stop all tests, whether humans or animals........altogether.

Ghost.

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 11:11 AM
maybe some scientist who thinks he's god has already come up with fake human parts to test things on so that no animals or humans are involved.


Yet another thorny issue.

Atomik
01-12--2005, 11:18 AM
Ok, point taken, but with the prisons so overcrowded, isint it fair to give "those people" a fair chance, they would be doing thier bit for society. Fairs fair. And what if it was you in prison for some animal rights related crime? Or should we just test on murderers? And what if it turns out that they were wrongly convicted?

Even so, I don't feel the answers to society's problems are to be found through anger, vengeance and hatred. There are times I could quite happily slit the throats of any number of twisted people and not bat an eyelid. However, I recognise the destructive nature of such emotions and avoid them. I don't want to become like my enemy.

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 11:21 AM
If we can find some common ground, a way to stop all tests, whether humans or animals........altogether.


That can't happen, it goes completely against human instinct, we are inquisitive, we need to know, to understand, to overcome.

It is a complex issue and not one I can condense into a sentence or paragraph. I also think your voice needs to be heard Ghost, but without the violent overtones. Luck to you sir.

Exedous
01-12--2005, 11:23 AM
Yet another thorny issue.

Maybe one day, animals will start testing on us!!!! Then WE will be the one's complaining Boo Hoo....


And what if it was you in prison for some animal rights related crime? Or should
we just test on murderers? And what if it turns out that they were wrongly
convicted?

Even so, I don't feel the answers to society's problems are to be found through
anger, vengeance and hatred. There are times I could quite happily slit the
throats of any number of twisted people and not bat an eyelid. However, I
recognise the destructive nature of such emotions and avoid them. I don't want
to become like my enemy. Neither do i, this i know does make me exactly like that which i hate...wrong convictions are a good reason im sure not to test on humans...but make up, cosmetics....come on.....

Its not needed. Ghost

Atomik
01-12--2005, 11:26 AM
Of course it isn't needed. I seriously doubt the value of medical testing as well. I wasn't disagreeing with you on that. I just oppose compulsory testing on anyone or anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Joel
01-12--2005, 12:11 PM
thank you depablo...although i must say that you know nothing about my involvement in animal rights issues...so lets refrain, and what i said was far far far from being an advocate of animal abuse...

just saying that as long as animal testing is still considered economically or scientifically justified then it will carry on, no matter what labs are forced shut, others will spring up

the true path to destroying animal testing is in the hearts and minds of the general public, through scientifically saying "this doesnt work, there are better ways to do things" thats when animal labs will closed, the people on the street are very influenced by the thoughts and ideas of the scientific community, because they are not educated on the subject. So if pop scientists like robert winston endorse animal testing it is him that they will believe, sad but true. The public are easilly led...

for instance, the animal rights industry will never shut down the biggest abuser...the meat industry, its far too economically viable for them to stop, the only way to do that is in a change of cultural values, through the mass education of the people

and it doesnt come in the form of leafleting on a saturday afternoon, or from acedemics such as peter singer, the sad fact is that people like Linda Mcartney and Alicia Silverstone have done more to convert people to both vegitarianism and animal rights in the last 40 years than anyone else

there are only one set of people that the public trust more than scientists, and thats celebraties and fads

now thats not me saying "hey lets stop campaigning" just making it plain, that 80% of the population dont care about animals dieing in labs, or that they're dinner for the evening has been butchered in some dirty abatoir

point is, mass, pop education is the way to go! (just look at the success with make poverty history, whilst they did not fullfil their goals of making poverty that month or two you couldnt go anywhere without seeing practically everyone wearing a white arm band)

prehaps people only care when it doesnt involve them doing anything, i dont know...

Atomik
01-12--2005, 12:14 PM
the true path to destroying animal testing is in the hearts and minds of the general public, through scientifically saying "this doesnt work, there are better ways to do things" thats when animal labs will closed
and it doesnt come in the form of leafleting on a saturday afternoon, or from acedemics such as peter singer, the sad fact is that people like Linda Mcartney and Alicia Silverstone have done more to convert people to both vegitarianism and animal rights in the last 40 years than anyone elseCouldn't agree more :thumbup:

Exedous
01-12--2005, 12:38 PM
Couldn't agree more :thumbup:

By the way, those "WHITE ARM BANDS" were made in sweat shops....so much for making poverty history, more "make history poverty"
.
Anyhoo,...pop culture...dont make me laugh, a bunch of sicaphantic whiners, wearing make up, which has presumably been animal tested, doing ads for supermarkets and burger joints.....

Also i do not condone the mass bombing camaigns, that have tagged the animal rights campaign for years, that, in its infancy, may have had its point..and it did alot to higlight the campaign..i STILL do NOT condone it. Yes...i know there were hardly any, not as many as others...still....!!

Saying that, Direct Action, has a moral majority backing...tho this brings up a whole other bag of issues.....

Big Issue anyone......??

Ghost

Joel
01-12--2005, 12:41 PM
look all im saying is that animal rights needs the general publics support

and the general public support what they on mass think is cool

and no offence but they support the opinions of pop culture, not some hippys stood in the rain on a saturday afternoon handing out leaflets

thats just how they see it

unless you embrace all aspects of society in a quest to rid the world of lab testing...you aint gonna get anywhere, you'll only ever be targeting the small bracket of society that stop and look at the leaflets, the ones that are already slightly interested..

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 12:41 PM
thank you depablo...although i must say that you know nothing about my involvement in animal rights issues...so lets refrain, and what i said was far far far from being an advocate of animal abuse...


refrain from what ? animal rights ? lost me, assuming you mean me.

Joel
01-12--2005, 12:44 PM
refrain from accusing me of supporting animal testing, just because i propose a new way of looking at the situation

Dapablo
01-12--2005, 12:45 PM
refrain from accusing me of supporting animal testing, just because i propose a new way of looking at the situation

Sorry but where? you know the poor old brain.

Atomik
01-12--2005, 12:50 PM
By the way, those "WHITE ARM BANDS" were made in sweat shops....so much for making poverty history, more "make history poverty"
.
Anyhoo,...pop culture...dont make me laugh, a bunch of sicaphantic whiners, wearing make up, which has presumably been animal tested, doing ads for supermarkets and burger joints..... I think you're missing the point. Nobody's suggesting that it's a good thing that popular culture fuels vegetarianism. We're simply stating the blindingly obvious. I happen to think it's sad - but it's still the truth.

Joel
01-12--2005, 12:53 PM
I think you're missing the point. Nobody's suggesting that it's a good thing that popular culture fuels vegetarianism. We're simply stating the blindingly obvious. I happen to think it's sad - but it's still the truth.

exactly...

Exedous
01-12--2005, 03:04 PM
exactly...

Ye, ok, i can see where youre coming from....sad but true...i agree...

Ghost

stormypagan
01-12--2005, 04:11 PM
it has always bothered me that it has been proven time and again that animals react differently to humans in these tests. one drug that harms a cat may make an ape psychotic and do god only knows what to a human.

scientists seem unable or unwilling to see that these tests are pointless and inacurate. the only accurate way to test how a human will react to something is to test it on a human.



I totally agree with you Stardust. Our immune systems are totally different to non human animals. But I believe in human testing by consenting humans only. We mustn't forget we are all animals but of different species that is all.

Vivisection is a scientific fraud in my eyes. Years of testing on animals and we still have inadequate forms of medicine with long lists of side effects, when you look at the information they provide with them!! Cats died from aspirin humans don't, and children were severely handicapped after their mothers took thalidomide for morning sickness:( And if animals testing has been so successful why isn't there a cure for AIDS or even basic cancers yet?? There are just pots of pills to supposedly help but often it has the adverse effect of breaking down a person's immune system.

Vivisectors make huge bucks from the jobs they do!! There are many pointless experiments on animals that just line the pockets of the vivisectors and prove very little for the good of human kind. It is time more money was ploughed into alternatives (there are a few place like DR Hadwins Trust who don't use animals) instead of choosing the cheapest option which is testing on sentient beings without a voice. The LD50 tests are a con too, and only help those who are producing tested drugs etc in respect of the law because they can say they have been tested, so any compensation claims would be harder to make if drugs cause ill effects in people.

Click here for more about that if you aren't sure ...

http://www.neavs.org/betterscience/bettersci_animal_tests_ld50_draize_corro sovity.htm

There is also info about the alternative to using animals on there.

And more stuff on this website about vivisection ...

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

Well, that is my rant for now <grin>

stormypagan
01-12--2005, 04:25 PM
Oh and when experimenting on animals, vivisectors will falsely give the animal the disease or symptoms, they do not contract it naturally so to me this again can't give you a true and accurate picture!!

Here is the link for the argument for experimenting and against ..

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm#for


One more thing... I know many people are ill in this world and rely on tested drugs, even if they have been brainwashed into believing that they do them good!! And I know that the alternatives aren't there for many folk. I don't wish to have a go at anyone whose insecurities have been played with, and have come to believe that what they take will help them. I say this because often people don't have an alternative or believe enough in non tested alternatives. I have known people with illnesses that have taken tested drugs and I would never slag them off, just try and advise them of the alternatives. And yes, on the very rare occasion I have had to have something, sadly as I couldn't get am alternative. But I still stand by the fact I think vivisection should be stopped on non-human animals.

Dready Warrior
01-12--2005, 09:29 PM
By the way, those "WHITE ARM BANDS" were made in sweat shops....so much for making poverty history, more "make history poverty"

the oxfam ones were definatly NOT made in sweat shops, they were made abroad by people getting a fair wage and in decent woking conditions. i was involved quite a lot at the beginning of the year with oxfam and the white band campaign and i had been told they were made in sweat shops so went and found out for sure.

wear your white band on 10th december for world white band day!

matthew
02-12--2005, 05:58 PM
the oxfam ones were definatly NOT made in sweat shops, they were made abroad by people getting a fair wage and in decent woking conditions. i was involved quite a lot at the beginning of the year with oxfam and the white band campaign and i had been told they were made in sweat shops so went and found out for sure.



A spokeswoman for Cafod, which bought 120,000 rubber bands from the Tat Shing factory, said today: “It was concerned that labour standards weren’t as good as we would have expected especially as we were buying as part of this campaign.”
She said: “The point (forced labour) was around people being asked to leave a deposit against future possible breakages of machinery which clearly we wouldn’t want to see and violates Chinese law and the Ethical Trade Initiative.
“There were a lot of things which clearly concerned us so we asked them to take corrective action.

Oxfam bought 10,000 silicon wristbands from Tat Shing in November last year, none of which have been sold, but found another supplier while waiting to receive the firm’s audit.
Oxfam then ordered 1.5 million wristbands from Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company after the failings highlighted in its audit had been addressed.
A spokesman for Oxfam said: “Like the rest of the Make Poverty History coalition, Oxfam is concerned about the ethical audits that have come back on the Chinese factories lined up to supply white bands and we have agreed formal action plans to address the concerns raised which have been carried out.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12464

An audit report on Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company, in Fujian province, said workers were paid below the local minimum hourly wage of 2.39 yuan (16p), to as low as 1.39 yuan (9p). They were insufficiently rewarded for overtime work, had no paid annual leave and suffered pay deductions for disciplinary reasons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1495186,00.html



wear your white band on 10th december for world white band day!


I have not taken mine off yet..

stormypagan
02-12--2005, 06:02 PM
I had a fabric one and it got really grubby but then I am a dirty hippi hehehe!! :D

Interesting reading on last few posts :0)

stormypagan
02-12--2005, 06:03 PM
I had a fabric one and it got really grubby but then I am a dirty hippi hehehe!! :D

Interesting reading on last few posts :0)

Exedous
02-12--2005, 06:28 PM
Nope, sorry i wont be wearing ANY bands on Dec 10, or anytime....i dont believe it, its huge con, just to get people to buy sh*t and MORE bands. How many starving african children have you seen, saying..."oh, im starving, but hey, i can always wear my "white arm band" NO!!"!"!

Just my view.

Ghost

matthew
02-12--2005, 06:46 PM
Yes and no, im an asthmatic, and as such i know that animals have probabaly been tested so i can breathe.

I know this, so, yes, i have "relinquished" my treatment, as in i have turned down pills that could help. Steroids make me ill.

Ghost

I apologise for thinking some one may find testing on humans better than animals..i guess you was a bit controversial with that one :whistle:

Would you still take them if they did not make you ill ?..

Medical procedures and equipment are also tested on animals [heart bypasses / transpalnts etc].. i think the vast majority of [if not all] the practices within hospitals have been developed using animals.. not something to be greatly chuffed about...but....

Those that say it produces no results are kidding themselves..or if they think that the days of testing on animals are limited because of no present tangiable developments regarding cancers / aids etc [noted from Stormypagans link] are possibly wrong..


PET helps cancer fight? (http://PET helps cancer fight?)Using mice, researchers have used a non-invasive technique, positron emission topography (PET), to observe in real time how the immune system attacks cancer. The technique could soon allow doctors to observe whether cancer therapies are working, allowing patients to drop ineffective treatments and switch to ones that might work better. The research team removed bone marrow from a mouse and marked stem cells with two radioactive probes. The bone marrow was then transplanted into another mouse along with cancer cells. A scan of the mouse was done with PET to visualise the effectiveness of the immune system’s primary anti-tumour response. One of the probes used has already been approved for use in humans, which could speed clinical trials.
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/images/spacer.gifProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/)
17 November 2005


They possibly may have too wait a few more years, i believe developments run in peaks and troughs..
In hindsight we look back at what was developed and think we must be done and can move on from animal testing, then another decade will come and go and we can look back and can see what developments have occured in that time [and are widely used].
I am sure one day a time will come when it won't be as defendable but i don't see it my life time [though hopefully i have 50 years or more-so i may see the day ??].

It makes me sad when people go on about corps' gaining huge profits etc etc etc .. this is true of course but in balance these big corps' have saved millions of lives.

matthew
02-12--2005, 06:53 PM
Nope, sorry i wont be wearing ANY bands on Dec 10, or anytime....i dont believe it, its huge con, just to get people to buy sh*t and MORE bands. How many starving african children have you seen, saying..."oh, im starving, but hey, i can always wear my "white arm band" NO!!"!"!

Just my view.

Ghost

It is merely a sign that you support what the band means.. It pisses me off when people wear it [or any band] for fashion..but not everybody is like that [i am not]. These bands do play on 'fashion' i have to say..but the flip side is the amount of money raised and the varying degrees of awareness to the 'cause' and keeping it within the medias gaze.. is a GREAT thing... don't be so cynical :whistle:


http://www.oxfam.org.uk/images/transparent.gifhttp://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_you_can_do/campaign/mph/images/wbd3.jpg10 December 2005
White Band Day 3
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/images/transparent.gif
Children in the Philippines wearing Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) white bands.
Credit: Joe Galvez
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_you_can_do/campaign/mph/whitebandday3.htm

Atomik
02-12--2005, 07:24 PM
Those that say it produces no results are kidding themselves..That's an incredibly arrongant and patronising point of view. You really need to learn a little respect for the opinions of others. There are many of us who believe that vivisection is scientific fraud and have researched this topic in great depth. You're welcome to put a different point of view, but saying we're "kidding ourselves" just makes you look ignorant and stupid. I disagree with your point of view, but I wouldn't accuse you of "kidding yourself". Such attitudes just undermine your argument.


It makes me sad when people go on about corps' gaining huge profits etc etc etc .. this is true of course but in balance these big corps' have saved millions of lives.Although on balance, I suspect they've done more harm than good. And ultimately, where profit is the main motive, our health will always play second fiddle to the corporate bottom line.

Dready Warrior
03-12--2005, 10:47 AM
A spokeswoman for Cafod, which bought 120,000 rubber bands from the Tat Shing factory, said today: “It was concerned that labour standards weren’t as good as we would have expected especially as we were buying as part of this campaign.”
She said: “The point (forced labour) was around people being asked to leave a deposit against future possible breakages of machinery which clearly we wouldn’t want to see and violates Chinese law and the Ethical Trade Initiative.
“There were a lot of things which clearly concerned us so we asked them to take corrective action.

Oxfam bought 10,000 silicon wristbands from Tat Shing in November last year, none of which have been sold, but found another supplier while waiting to receive the firm’s audit.
Oxfam then ordered 1.5 million wristbands from Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company after the failings highlighted in its audit had been addressed.
A spokesman for Oxfam said: “Like the rest of the Make Poverty History coalition, Oxfam is concerned about the ethical audits that have come back on the Chinese factories lined up to supply white bands and we have agreed formal action plans to address the concerns raised which have been carried out.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12464

An audit report on Fuzhou Xing Chun Trade Company, in Fujian province, said workers were paid below the local minimum hourly wage of 2.39 yuan (16p), to as low as 1.39 yuan (9p). They were insufficiently rewarded for overtime work, had no paid annual leave and suffered pay deductions for disciplinary reasons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1495186,00.html





I have not taken mine off yet..

very interesting matthew, thanks. i will be taking this up with the oxfam staff that told me a totally different story to this.

matthew
04-12--2005, 08:53 PM
[quote=Doktor Atomik]That's an incredibly arrongant and patronising point of view. You really need to learn a little respect for the opinions of others. There are many of us who believe that vivisection is scientific fraud and have researched this topic in great depth. You're welcome to put a different point of view, but saying we're "kidding ourselves" just makes you look ignorant and stupid. I disagree with your point of view, but I wouldn't accuse you of "kidding yourself". Such attitudes just undermine your argument.

If anybody believes that animal testing has not given any results , they ARE kidding themselves.. What is wrong with me saying that. Are you saying that animal testing has NEVER given any results EVER ??..
Thats ''animal testing has never produced any positive [for clarity] results EVER''. Then sorry i will have to be arrogant and say you ARE kidding yourselves or yourself.

Atomik
04-12--2005, 09:24 PM
If anybody believes that animal testing has not given any results , they ARE kidding themselves.. What is wrong with me saying that. Are you saying that animal testing has NEVER given any results EVER ??
Thats ''animal testing has never produced any positive [for clarity] results EVER''. Then sorry i will have to be arrogant and say you ARE kidding yourselves or yourself. I'm saying that if pharmaceutical research has ever provided any results that correspond to the way drugs behave in human bodies, then it's by sheer chance and we might just as well have rolled a dice. Animal biology is not human biology. There's no way of knowing whether a chemical that behaves in a particular way in an animal's body will behave in the same way in a human's body. It's a waste of time, and it's scientific fraud.

Atomik
04-12--2005, 09:49 PM
I've removed Zig Zag's last post, as on reflection, I think it's trouble causing from someone in the mood to stir up some shit on their way out. I'm doing her the honour of banning her to make sure she keeps to her word. If she's not interested in engaging in discussion about the issues that concern her and just wants to hurl around insults, then I'd rather she kept her venom to herself.

scothippy
04-12--2005, 10:10 PM
What did she say? Was it really bad?

Atomik
04-12--2005, 10:14 PM
It wasn't so much what she said as the fact that she said it to stir trouble on her way out. If she wanted to hang around and discuss the issue then there wouldn't have been a problem.

cymru_jules
04-12--2005, 10:16 PM
I think the idea of animal testing is that you can get drugs to market quicker by testing on animals first. I guess people wouldn't invest millions of pounds in it and have all the agro associated with it and a tarnished name if there wasn't some benefit.

On the other hand, asprins given to dogs kill them because they are totally incompaitable with the drug, as an example. That's not to say that this means all drugs testing is irrelevant - alcohol given to a dog will have the same effect as on humans!

I once confronted somebody I knew quite well who once worked in a laboratory where they used mice (I didn't know they worked there until they happened to mention it in a heated debate about animal rights and specifically testing!).

They made such a good argument about why it's done that basically I didn't have a leg to stand on (I was a student and into the whole anti-everything at the time). Although they didn't convince me entirely (I recognise that they're not just doing it for evil kicks), I've since calmed a whole lot down about it and turn a blind eye like the majority of the population I'm sad to say. On the other hand, the individual in question didn't like the whole mice thing one bit and was in a different job after 4 months!

Basically all this taught me that never really is any black or white to even the issues that seem downright clear to begin with - or maybe it's just with old age that I've become a fence sitter. ;)

Atomik
04-12--2005, 10:20 PM
I think the idea of animal testing is that you can get drugs to market quicker by testing on animals first. I guess people wouldn't invest millions of pounds in it and have all the agro associated with it and a tarnished name if there wasn't some benefit.I'd argue that the money invested is spent to perpetuate the lie that these drugs are safe and to cover the arses of those involved. I'm sure there's some mutual pocket-lining going on as well.


On the other hand, asprins given to dogs kill them because they are totally incompaitable with the drug, as an example. That's not to say that this means all drugs testing is irrelevant - alcohol given to a dog will have the same effect as on humans!But that's just luck. If you can't test with the certainty that drugs will react in the same way, then what's the point of testing?


Basically all this taught me that never really is any black or white to even the issues that seem downright clear to begin with - or maybe it's just with old age that I've become a fence sitter. ;)27? Old age? Pah! :harhar:

matthew
04-12--2005, 10:27 PM
I'm saying that if pharmaceutical research has ever provided any results that correspond to the way drugs behave in human bodies, then it's by sheer chance and we might just as well have rolled a dice. Animal biology is not human biology. There's no way of knowing whether a chemical that behaves in a particular way in an animal's body will behave in the same way in a human's body. It's a waste of time, and it's scientific fraud.

Do you agree or disagree that animal testing has never produced any positive results.. thats all i was saying.
I disagree that it is 'hit and hope' as far as what you are saying.

P.s

Anybody willing can go protest outside that place every thursday or was that tuesday ? anyhoo one of those days you can go down and protest away [in a specialy designated spot]... with out causing the people who don't share your views any grief.

Atomik
04-12--2005, 10:30 PM
Do you agree or disagree that animal testing has never produced any positive results.. thats all i was saying.
I disagree that it is 'hit and hope' as far as what you are saying.If we're talking about pharmaceutical testing, then yes, that's what I believe. Any 'positive results' are the product of blind chance in my opinion.

matthew
04-12--2005, 10:33 PM
What did she say? Was it really bad?

I think she called you a few names..but i am not sure.. :whistle:

just kidding.. i won't get into it now.

matthew
04-12--2005, 10:37 PM
If we're talking about pharmaceutical testing,

We are now... i never narrowed it down to this particular criteria..
I don't know if you will answer the broad statement you think i am being arrogant about..?.


then yes, that's what I believe. Any 'positive results' are the product of blind chance in my opinion.

Fair enough.

Atomik
04-12--2005, 10:43 PM
We are now... i never narrowed it down to this particular criteria.. I'm not sure what other criteria there are? I was specifying pharmaceutical research to avoid any confusion with, say, developing surgical techniques. But I woulnd't call that 'animal testing' as such.


I don't know if you will answer the broad statement you think i am being arrogant about..?.I believe animal testing is bad science and has never produced any useful results. You don't believe that. I disagree with your point of view, but I assume that it's honestly held from your reading on the subject. I wouldn't accuse you of 'kidding yourself', because that would imply that you held the opinion simply through a desire for it to be true, which I'm sure isn't the case. So to accuse those who hold the opposing opinion of 'kidding themselves' is a little on the arrogant side - assuming someone else's opinion isn't well-researched and sincerely held.

matthew
04-12--2005, 11:01 PM
I was specifying pharmaceutical research to avoid any confusion with, say, developing surgical techniques.
But I woulnd't call that 'animal testing' as such.

Why not ?



I believe animal testing is bad science and has never produced any useful results. You don't believe that. I disagree with your point of view, but I assume that it's honestly held from your reading on the subject. I wouldn't accuse you of 'kidding yourself', because that would imply that you held the opinion simply through a desire for it to be true, which I'm sure isn't the case. So to accuse those who hold the opposing opinion of 'kidding themselves' is a little on the arrogant side - assuming someone else's opinion isn't well-researched and sincerely held.


Subtle i am not..

matthew
04-12--2005, 11:37 PM
very interesting matthew, thanks. i will be taking this up with the oxfam staff that told me a totally different story to this.

If it is the OAP working mornings ..then be nice, she might not have realised :whistle: .. Seriously they may have just been mis-informed rather than trying to peddle a falsehood..i dunno :o