Animal cruelty - lack of support on threads

[theyhavenovoice]

so am posting here because I’ve tried on other threads ( keep getting moved). In light of the last few days and what we’re learning. Testing on animals/ Beagles in the UK. I’m feeling heartbroken and have been so unaware. Anyone else?

In all the examples you quote, I think we have so much data that we no longer need it. all those drugs exist and work fine, changes to them should build on that knowledge. Remember animal testing is for toxicity, not effectiveness.

I loathe cruelty in all its forms, whether towards kids, animals or other adults. And I think there is a lot of unnecessary animal testing - the bare minimum should (perhaps) be allowed for medical research.
But people here jumping on their high horses when they use cosmetics that have been tested on animals and eat cheap factory-produced meat? I say, get your own house in order first.

We don’t have the evidence for new drugs do we?

I really don’t understand this as a counter argument. The fact is all drugs that exist now have been animal tested. That can’t be changed. The question is whether we need to continue testing new variations, and also whether those tests need to be quite so invasive. In the example the pp gave, was it necessary to kill the dogs? I haven’t read the paper so can’t say for sure but we do have flea prophylaxis, which has already been tested. Why are we killing more dogs to create more drugs that do the same thing?

It used to be legal for men to rape their wife, and to drink drive, and to include lead in face make up. Things change, thankfully.

So we should just endlessly test new variations of all kinds of drugs and products on animals because we ‘don’t know what will happen’? Obviously not. There should be a clear purpose. Are you really going to defend the testing of new laxatives?

What were you doing when you were a teenager? That's pretty much when there was an explosion in the availability of Cruelty-free/BUAV approved cosmetics and products.

As someone who has chronic constipation due to opiates, yes. If needed (which as I understand it, is the current law)

That’s not how human rights work.

So the hundreds of existing products and natural solutions are not sufficient for you, you want to put animals through even more suffering so you don’t have to suffer?

Moot anyway because I’m sure what we already know about how substances act on gut motility would be enough to develop new laxatives anyway. And for some people, nothing is going to work that well because of the opiates. Just one of those horrible things.

i find the laxatives that work for me very unpleasant.

my life sucks as it is and if there was a new laxative that could make me have a more normal life, yes I would want to avail of that. As I understand it, currently that means it would have to be rested on animals and I would accept that.

fwiw were I to be offered the chance to take part in a clinical trial for a drug like this, I would volunteer myself.

Somewhat OT but GLPs are not likely to be effective if you genuinely don’t overeat (antidepressants tend to make us hungrier but most of us underestimate our intake).

I suspect human trials would be more effective. The testing on animals is not for effectiveness (sort of obvious isn’t it, they’re not the same as us).

Sorry to hear you are so unwell though, that sounds very hard and I hope you have a good recovery ahead.

Yes, animal care technicians are softies. Or at least the ones I know are. They do cuddle and comfort the animals they look after. There are strict rules about socialisation and interactions with them. Europe is way ahead of US, which is probably not a surprise. All the ones I know genuinely love animals and they do the job to ensure that they are given the best possible care they can within the confines of the study parameters. Every single study has to go through independent ethical approval and no procedures are conducted unless absolutely essential.

I know. I have to ea less than 1500 calories a day to lose and I track on MFP. I’m on steroids for arthritis as well as the antidepressants and im not mobile - I walk with crutches and have a wheelchair for bad days. My priority is staying alive at this point (don’t take that the wrong way- I was SA’d and raped so violently that I can’t describe it here) I current am not eligible for the WLI due to cancer anyway.

The physical stuff is easier to deal with than the mental but thank you.

Yes, I was thinking about the steroids in particular as AD weight gain can be intake related.

Given so many unknowns you might be better off being ineligible for WLIs anyway.

That’s a horrible set of circumstances, I hope you have some support.

I did think I’d already said about the steroids - sorry if I hadn’t.

Oh no you did, I didn’t reply clearly I think. I meant when I replied the first time on WLIs I had in mind that steroid weight gain would be unlikely to reversed by GLPs.

Ah right - maybe I misunderstood. I do know they probably wouldn’t work for me specifically, and certainly right now (WLIs I mean). I was talking hypothetically.

I Mean if there was a new chemo that was easier to tolerate, or a new arthritis drug, or some amazing new painkiller, if it had to be tested on animals, as I understand is the current law, then I’d happily have it. I’d volunteer to be a tester for it (I’ve already taken part in one clinical trial so I do put my money where my mouth is, as it were).

Newer products have different, and often more targeted modes of action. They do not have the same toxicity profile as older ones. We are still way off knowing about every single biological and molecular pathway to be fully confident that new actives do not have off target effects. The variability in toxicity and efficacy between different groups of people means that we will always need more options.
It is not as simple as saying "we have a blood pressure medication, we don't need any more".

And for lifesaving and serious quality of life improving drugs I do accept the need for some animal testing, while we work to eradicate the need for it. I just think the scope of what qualifies is quite narrow and I don’t see the need for repeated iterations of drugs just to serve the market.

For example, the explosion in GLPs which is (largely, though with some exceptions) no longer about life saving treatment for diabetics, and is now about increasing fat loss while preserving muscle mass. Totally accept that obesity is dangerous, and can result in diabetes, CVD and liver disease, but also there are other routes to fixing that. But they’d involve denting the profits of food, alcohol and pharmaceuticals companies, so we’ll just carrying on using monkeys. It’s just not right. And saying so isn’t denigrating people who use particular drugs, it’s about the process.

And that’s not what I said.

Do we need to know every single biological or molecular pathway, if the cost is the suffering of sentient beings? That’s the question for me. Is it worth it? And for some things, that’s arguably yes and for some very obviously no.

And it doesn’t matter how much your lab friends are animal lovers. The men who work on death row are usually nice to those waiting to die. It doesn’t make the objective suffering any less, and in the case of lab animals they haven’t even done anything worthy of punishment.

Maybe not but what a shame.

this is my understanding. Thank you for explaining.

How would you decide what ones are worth it?

clearly you don’t think there should be new laxatives. I can tell you that a new laxative would potentially greatly improve my life.