Stand up to cancer and animal testing

[OoerBlah]

First of all, I'm genuinely sorry for anyone who has lost someone they love to cancer. But I've been watching this thing and feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Initially it was just that cancer is so incredibly difficult to treat even after all these many years of research that it just seemed so mawkish and pointless.

But then I realised where all these millions of pounds will ultimately be going - to fund research which will no doubt be on millions of defenceless innocent animals and for what? Haven't we been doing that for years already and where are we.

People die. All species die of any number of illnesses. Why do humans feel entitled to use other species so mercilessly in the vain hope of prolonging our own lives?

Anyway. Sorry, but I'm not contributing to the further mass genocide of creatures who in no way deserve to live and die solely for human benefit.

I am alive and kicking thanks to this type of research so YABU. Without use of animals there would be no biological research or new and improved therapies because even if an drug is not tested directly on an animal the methods used in the lab rely indirectly on animals for reagents etc. Everything is done these days to minimize the number of animals used for testing not least because it is very expensive. Care is also good because poor husbandry would mean most of the results would be invalid.

It's a necessary evil and there is no better alternative.

Animal testing/ breeding animals for testing is a huge industry. 'Saving lives from cancer' is a smokescreen. Bullshit really.

Clearly your life has never been touched with someone you love suffering from cancer or dying from it OP, I suspect you would have a completely different view if this was the case! I can't believe you wrote you feel treating cancer is pointless! How fucking dare you! Cancer treatments meant my Mum lived long enough to meet her precious Grandson and had nearly 2 years with him before she died.

All you who attack the OP/call her names/a troll because she holds this opinion that is different to yours (how dare she).

Do you really assume that she holds this opinion because she has never been touched by cancer?
I don't know a single person who has not lost a friend or relative to cancer.

Is it not possible or believable to you that she holds this opinion and wants to discuss it? Or are you so arrogant as to think that yours is the only one that counts?

My friend was very badly burned in an accident, she refused a treatment on the basis of the testing procedure that it was developed by.

Some people do hold these opinions and they are allowed to-I am so sick of the piling in mentality on here and refusal to even debate beyond telling the OP to 'fuck off'.

My guess is the reason OP chose cancer to argue against animal testing is that that's where most energy/resources and therefore testing is being used at the moment? And also the fact that after so many years of research a cure has not been found. That doesn't mean we should not keep trying though or that the resources or animal testing is in anyway wasted.

Also the argument that we have all have to die from something is a terrible thing to say to people who have lost loved ones - especially those who've lost children to cancer. So we should just let these people suffer and die because after all these years we haven't yet found a cure?

My friend is vegetarian and always went on about animal testing for medical research and how she would never donate to BHF or cancer research because.they test on animals.

A few years ago her mum was diagnosed with, and survived, bowel cancer. Funnily enough my friend doesn't say those things anymore and raises money for CR.

Do animal rights believers really never take any medicines at all in their whole life? I'd love to know the proportion who actually do. I'm not sure I believe that most don't turn into hypocrites when their health fails.

Hedgehog I haven't "attacked" OP because she has a different opinion at all, her post is completely offensive to people who have lost loved ones to cancer, with the "oh well everyone dies anyway" and "pointless" comments.

I am an animal lover and think animals shouldn't have stupid things like make-up or creams tested on them. But drugs that could save a life? I don't have an issue at all.

My dad had testicular cancer about 5 years ago. 30 years ago, it was a death sentence. He's now living a very active life and living very happily with it in remission. It's only due to testing on animals that he's survived.

I'm not thrilled about how we find these treatments but at the end of the day, if it can help anybody with a medical condition, I think we need to keep doing it.

And yes I don't believe OP has lost someone - there is no way on earth any sane person would rather see a loved one die just because the treatments are tested on animals. You would be damn grateful for ANY treatment that would prolong or help save the life of a loved one.

Unpopular opinion, but I agree. I've just lost my grandad to cancer so I know what a horrible disease it is, but just can't understand the belief that some lives are worth more than others? In my eyes, an animal is not better than a human, and none of them should have to die to save the other.

My guess is the reason OP chose cancer to argue against animal testing is that that's where most energy/resources and therefore testing is being used at the moment? And also the fact that after so many years of research a cure has not been found. That doesn't mean we should not keep trying though or that the resources or animal testing is in anyway wasted.
There are things like cannabis or alternative medicines which are very much suppressed by medical industry, because big pharma wouldn't reap such high profits.
Cancer research is only very small segment of animal testing industry.

If you got cancer Op would you just martyr yourself no treatment no pain relief no antibiotics ? If so well that is your right. however extending a human life is more important imo I dont particularly like the thought of animal testing but it is for the greater good. You are not really sympathetic to anybody really op because if you were you would have thought your post through and not posted.

Yes OP, if your child got cancer would you just turn around and say 'sorry sweetheart no chemo for you, think of the poor animals'.

Of course you wouldn't.

Making out you are such a good person because you are so sympathetic towards animals, while being really offensive to people who have suffered or watched loved ones suffer from cancer.

Fuck off.

That's interesting Nataleejah, as someone non medical it feels like a lot of resource goes into cancer research - as it should. I guess as a by-product one would assume a lot of testing too. I thought cannabis was suppressed because of the side effects rather than for big pharma profit reasons? I am aware of the conspiracy theory that a cure exists but big pharms are keeping it a secret to make more money but I just don't buy that. Imagine how much money could be made with a proper cure!

Having the attitude of well we are all going to die any is not only arrogant but thoughtless. I just don't understand it nobody wins or looses a fight with cancer they get the treatment live or sadly die but surely these people deserve the chance.

Simmi1

Think again. Chemo, radiotherapy, and other traditional cancer treatments have horrific, even lethal side effects. And not cancer treatments only. Yet medical cannabis usage is highly criminalized. Law enforcement spends a lot of resources prosecuting.
Yet we should donate to types of research which is highly pointless, ethics aside?

Animals used for testing are

1. specifically bread for that purpose, they would not exist without the testing
2. are subject to really really strict rules, more so than a domestic pet. Eg if you transport a rabbit from a main site to a smaller one for an experiment it must be transported in an air conditioned van - if the air con is not working the experiment is cancelled
3. are humanly destroyed

In addition there are things that can only be studied in animals. If an animal seems to have immunity to cancer isn't that worth studying?

Not all animals studied are cute fuzzy animals, lots of research is done on fruit flies, OP would you swat a fly if it saved someone's life?

There are things like cannabis or alternative medicines which are very much suppressed by medical industry, because big pharma wouldn't reap such high profits.

Absolute bollocks - alternative medicines that work are not alternative, they are medicine. Cannabis can help with some symptoms of cancer treatment mainly nausea and loss of apatite. There is nothing magical about the munchies.

Willow bark is useful as a painkiller, but if you get it in the form of an aspirin tablet you know the dose you are getting.

Aspirin is still tested today because new properties have been discovered eg as an anti coagulant - no matter that it is cheap and doesn't make any 'big pharma' a huge profit.

OP, why not donate to the Dr Hadwen trust instead?

www.drhadwentrust.org/medical-research/cancer-general

They find research into cancer that does not use animals.

You are really stupid to start this thread. Insensitive too

^ this

As someone currently going through chemo.

So Nataleejah can you explain to me how cannabis and other 'alternative medicines' work at the molecular level and halt cell cycle proliferation

I lost both my parents to cancer at a young age,

I am vehemently against testing medicines (or any other products) on any animal.

It is wrong, cruel and inhumane to inflict pain, fear and suffering on another living creature.

Most, if not all new compounds are tested initially on cell lines or other in vitro methods and get a certain distance. To go further into medical trials the MHRA guide drug research as to which course they'd need to take to go further and often this does include in Vivo work - first animals then a series of human trials.
Scientists don't use animals willy nilly- there's much planning and protocol development and governance around the subject. The home office ensure Facilities across the whole country follow due process and pain and distress isn't allowed.
The UK probably have the most stringent animal testing regulations .... it's well governed and controlled