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?

I don’t ’not think there should be new laxatives’, I think a new laxative that requires an animal suffering is not worth it.

Have you really tried all the hundreds of products and natural alternatives and found. none to your liking? If so, I don’t think a ‘new’ laxative would improve your quality of life, since they are all based on the same active ingredients.

Only if you’re happy for someone who doesn’t like your actions to decide you’re no longer worthy of rights.

The sort of prisoners I am thinking of wouldn't have people defending their actions unless they were equally heinous.

Gosh how original 🥱

And with this comment you show how little you know about pharmaceutical development. New products are not simply a rehash of the same active ingredients.

But excuse me while I go and join a call with the FDA about a novel product I have been working on which has already had a global impact on many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Just as well isn’t it, because outcomes on animals are unreliable indicators of what would happen in the human body. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/who-we-are/our-members/doctors-against-animal-experiments#:~:text=Doctors%20Against%20Animal%20Experiments%20believe,Lab%20Animals

Not that this excuses the treatment of the beagles in the testing of a flea treatment.

wombat1a · Today 15:42
I think many many people will be amazed at have 'few' animals are used in bringing a potential drug from the test-tube to be accepted by a regulatory authority so you can inject something never given to a human being before for the 1st time. It is suprisingly few animals

Out of interest @wombat1a how many is it, exactly, for testing medicines (even though its value is limited in reality). I note 110 million animals are tested on in all kinds of ways for a variety of reasons https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20more%20than%20110%20million%20animals—including,burned%20off%20or%20their%20spinal%20cords%20crushed.

Of course they’re not, and nowhere did I say they were.

Are you really that desperate for personal recognition that you can’t read nuance? Here’s your little medal. 🥉

As others have stated, much testing is done for ZERO benefit at all, but simply to satisfy curiosity, even when satisfying that curiosity leads to no benefit at all to anyone or anything. I suggest you have a good look into it a little more deeply https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/basic-infos/arguments/scientific-arguments#jumpheading-7

https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/basic-infos/arguments/scientific-arguments#jumpheading-0

No, frankly, I completely disagree.

I agree that we need to minimise the use of animals in testing, and to eradicate it for trivial purposes, but how else is a young surgeon in training going to learn the subtle skills that might save your life? I interviewed a heart transplant surgeon almost 30 years ago and for his surgical training he disected five or six mouse hearts every day for several months. Becoming expert enough to be competent to cut open and rebuild a human heart requires practice. Small rodents have similar mammalian heart structures and the size teaches the necessary precision.

My post wasn’t clear, I have long refused personal care and cosmetics tested on animals, fortunately testing cosmetics on animals is now banned in the UK, but it didn’t used to be.

As regards pharmaceuticals, I’m lucky, as the only thing I have ever needed in my life is paracetamol and antibiotics - rarely.

However, I can’t do anything about pharmaceuticals that have long been tested. That doesn’t make it right, and quite frankly, it’s a waste of time and animal life, because physiology is different

“A British team of researchers examined the results of animal experiments that had been conducted in order to assess the risk of deformities in unborn children. It turned out that nearly half of the substances known to cause deformities in humans had previously been classified as harmless in animal studies. Conversely, nearly half of the drugs that women can take during pregnancy without problems were also considered unsafe in animal studies (22).”

https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/basic-infos/arguments/scientific-arguments#jumpheading-0

By dissection on subjects that had died via natural causes.

Happy to be corrected but I don’t believe that’s standard practise for surgical students in England any longer.

Most veterinary medicine is based on medication developed for humans, and the dosages are adapted by body weight.

I adore my doggo, but when I went to the out of hours post surgical clinic and told the doctor that I had borrowed two leftover veterinary co-amoxiclav tablets from the dog to treat a raging infection, he laughed like an idiot -- and prescribed me the exact same tablet, with a smooth coating.

https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/basic-infos/arguments/scientific-arguments#jumpheading-7

No, on live animals. How else do you learn to do a heart transplant?

Not much point practising on dead bodies is there?

I don’t think a ‘new’ laxative would improve your quality of life, since they are all based on the same active ingredients.

What do you mean here then?

Thanks for the medal, by the way. I'll add it to my collection.

Obviously, young surgeons start with dead critters, but it would be impossible to understand what succeeds and what fails without practicing on live animals. So they start on mice and rats, move on to pigs, and eventually may be licensed to operate on humans.

Quite frankly I find it revolting. I think it’s time humans are more accepting and peaceful in the notion of their own inevitable mortality, instead of abusing and causing suffering to animals just so they can consume more and more for a few more years.

Personally, I think this is a really sensible approach. No sensible human would want to be the pilot for a really radical technical experiment. My DH is alive today because thousands of procedures took place before he needed it, so by the time his heart was repaired, his surgeons knew how it was best done.

What an oddly specific point to pick up. The 500+ products in the UK are made of the same 30 odd ingredients. So a new product is likely to be made of those or a derivative thereof. Depending on the novelty, it may or may not require further safety testing.

A long time ago, I used to prepare prosecutions of people who I knew would end up in prison, when what they really needed was rehab, hospital, or even just a decent home, a good dinner and some better family and friends. I’m talking low level crime. It was a legal requirement to prosecute them, and there was an arguable case it was right to do so. But most of my colleagues could see that necessary, and comfortable, were not the same. Sometimes harm is outweighed by the benefits. Sometimes it’s not. Even if you get a medal for it. (No-one gave me a medal).

ETA @RedWineCupcakes , didn’t quote some reason

I think they’re winding you up to be honest.

@Allisnotlost1
yes I suppose some people really are that small, shrivel-hearted and shallow that they think the subject is funny.

I agree that we need to accept death better. But we are an intellectually curious species too. Do you not, in your everyday life, rely on all the accumulated knowledge and technological advances that let you and I communicate across the internet?

If you reject the means and methods required for medical progress, then I suspect you are in for a shorter and more painful life. That is the trade-off.

I'll take the use of animals in medical research as acceptable.