Login

Join for Free!
118888 members


PETA

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: PETA

Postby alextemplet » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:10 pm

I think it's more a matter of people believing that science represents some ultimate good and can therefor be studied entirely for its own sake. It's a product of blind faith, if you ask me.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re:

Postby volcob » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:31 am

mcar wrote:But isn't it already enough to at least stop at a point and realize, "hey! I think that must be all for now" However it's not. We do ANYTHING for the sake of this knowledge. It seems that the quest for this knowledge is exponentially progressing. We had the atom and we are searching more far in the outerspace, but still we are destined grow old , our body weakens,terminate to death. I do not want to sound biblical here, but in the book of Job and Ecclesiastes, we humans always thirst for more and we have so many questions though no matter we strive more, all and everything we have done will be soon forgotten then. The facts we discover will be just replaced by another fact. And everything will be just in pages that are soon to be aged and simply be over and done.


it is often said that human cannot content himself.

but should we? others say that those who are contented are those who does not dream or have no ambition at all..

i thought for example of Edison "the bulb maker"

he was never satisfied with what was established at his time.(some people or scientist had then said that everything that has to be discovered had already been discovered)

had those scientist and inventors who preceded him thought of those above then maybe were still in hunting and gathering or in the castle age if were not gone yet

for us, we have gone far but for the generations to come, we are left behind
volcob
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:08 am

Re: PETA

Postby mcar » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:27 pm

Volcob wrote:but should we? others say that those who are contented are those who does not dream or have no ambition at all

Dreaming is good, however, some of the dreams in their realization could really impose the destruction of the dreamer. The question would be, how can we realize our dreams with less pain with one another?
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)


Postby alextemplet » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:08 pm

Not just less pain to one another but also to our surrounding environment. Our power to influence and change the earth gives us a serious responsibility to protect it.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: PETA

Postby mcar » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:04 pm

alextemplet wrote: Not just less pain to one another but also to our surrounding environment. Our power to influence and change the earth gives us a serious responsibility to protect it.

If we lead our home to its great destruction--all of our gains from endeavor we made will just come to nothing afterall.
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)

Postby mcar » Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:08 pm

I have read this one. I think that it's also related to this topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html
http://cognews.com/1195706816
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)

Re: PETA

Postby noratmedicineforme » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:00 am

Here are a few doctors who do not agree that "Vivisection is a safer alternative to human testing.'

Species difference makes it impossible for medicine for one species to be based on any other species or variety of species. Humans and animals only get the same diseases 1.16% of the time. Humans now have 30,000 diseases yet about 60 million animals are killed in medical 'research' each year. Why is nothing cured? How did we get 30,000 diseases? The hundreds of thousands of artificial substances that we consume or come into contact with pass a fraudulent test, ie they are tested on other species of animals, this protects the financial health of the drug/chem co's via legal protection at the expense of our physical health and that of the environment.

Imagine this... a cat is sick with a feline (cat) disease. We want to help the cat. It is suggested that we observe the sick cat. This gets no funding. It is then suggested that we observe the population of cats to find why some get this disease and others do not and to then eliminate the cause. This also gets no funding. Then it is suggested that we get other animals which do not and cannot get this disease, we artificially induce symptoms in these healthy animals (eg dog, mouse human) and then try to 'cure' them. This is called an 'animal model' and it has no correlation to the real disease so the 'cure' does not work. This is why despite billions of dollars and millions of animals killed no human diseases are being cured despite constant claims of breakthroughs

DOCTORS AGAINST VIVISECTION
"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."
- Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.
"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.
"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby."
- Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller, M.D., 1976.
"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."
- Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.
"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions."
- Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of "Bell's Law" on motor and sensory nerves.
"Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall."
- Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.
"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
- Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).
"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect."
- Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.
"Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed."
- Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."
- Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
- Linus Pauling, PhD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.
"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs."
- Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.
"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans."
- Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.
"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
- Dr. G.F. Walker, 1933.
"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated."
- Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.
"It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin."
- A.L. Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.
"The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned."
- Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.
"Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished."
- Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.
"Experiments on animals do not only mean torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people. Vivisection is a double-edged sword."
- Major R.F.E. Austin, M.D., 1927, Royal College of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.
Cawadias (1953) has said that "The history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation and disaster."
(British Medical Journal, October 8 1955, p.867.)
Return to the Top
The above quotes were taken from the book 1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989.
For further information or to purchase the book contact Hans Ruesch Foundation/CIVIS - POB 152, via Motta 51, CH-6900 Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland


German researchers Drs H and M Stiller, “In praxis, all animal experiments are scientifically indefensible, as they lack any scientific validity and reliability in regard to humans. They only serve as an alibi for the drug manufacturers, who hope to protect themselves thereby”. Peter Tatchell, “Animal Research Is Bad Science”, 2001.

Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain, under oath at a hearing investigating the Thalidomide tragedy, said, “No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is carried out on several animal species including primates under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave in the same way in humans; because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal”. Tony Page, Vivisection Unveiled, Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1997, p. 103.
Thalidomide only causes birth defects in 3 of the 63 species it was finally tested on.
www.caare.org.uk
noratmedicineforme
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:56 am

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests