Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Animal testing,do you agree to it?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Irish Guitarist wrote: »I don't use deodorant anymore because I can't find one that doesn't test on animals. If I can't find toothpaste that doesn't test on animals I brush my teeth with baking soda instead (it's actually as good as toothpaste but tastes vile).
I use Faith in Nature rock crystal deodorant and it works fine and I use Kingfisher brand toothpaste. Neither of these two companies test on animals and you'll find both in a health food shop.
You can see more brands that don't test here
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Irish Guitarist wrote: »There's a health shop nearby that sells products that haven't been tested on animals. I buy things like sun block from there.
Right sorry to burst some bubbles here, but as was pointed out by an earlier poster, just because the finished product claims not to have been tested on animals doesn't mean the constituent ingredients themselves won't have been.Greentopia wrote: »I use Faith in Nature rock crystal deodorant and it works fine and I use Kingfisher brand toothpaste. Neither of these two companies test on animals and you'll find both in a health food shop.
You can see more brands that don't test here
Yeah the companies themselves wouldn't test on animals......but every raw ingredient sourced for their products will have at some stage had to be cleared for human consumption/external application....most probably involving animal tests.
A more accurate and honest way of marketing products as above would be "No new animal testing required"
Oh and it always amuses me the way these threads always end up in a downward spiral of human self-deprecation. Yeah guys we can be right sh1ts sometimes but overall we're a pretty decent species;)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Jimoslimos wrote: »Yeah the companies themselves wouldn't test on animals......but every raw ingredient sourced for their products will have at some stage had to be cleared for human consumption/external application....most probably involving animal tests.
Don't worry, you're not bursting any bubbles with me. I chose rock crystal (alum) deodorants from Faith in Nature because it contains NO ingredients that are tested on animals as backed up by their membership of the BUAV-British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
Rock crystal is simply natural mineral salts found in nature. They have been used for thousands of years in Asia as an anti-bacterial for cuts and scrapes.
No artificial colours or perfumes, and no aluminum chlorohydrate or aluminum zirconium, the two ingredients in regular deodorants. I've emailed the company and they verified that none of their ingredients (not just finished products) are tested on animals.
The toothpaste I use-Kingfisher also uses no ingredients that are tested on animals and has never tested on animals from the start.
They state:
"No animals whatsoever are harmed in the production of our toothpastes."
I've checked these companies out before buying their products and their credentials as members of organisations like the BUAV and PETA. Short of getting their board members to sign an affidavit that what they tell me is true that's all I can do if I want to continue having clean teeth and nice smelling pits. Which I do
0 -
Greentopia wrote: »Don't worry, you're not bursting any bubbles with me. I chose rock crystal (alum) deodorants from Faith in Nature because it contains NO ingredients that are tested on animals as backed up by their membership of the BUAV-British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
Rock crystal is simply natural mineral salts found in nature. They have been used for thousands of years in Asia as an anti-bacterial for cuts and scrapes.
No artificial colours or perfumes, and no aluminum chlorohydrate or aluminum zirconium, the two ingredients in regular deodorants. I've emailed the company and they verified that none of their ingredients (not just finished products) are tested on animals.
The toothpaste I use-Kingfisher also uses no ingredients that are tested on animals and has never tested on animals from the start.
They state:
"No animals whatsoever are harmed in the production of our toothpastes."
I've checked these companies out before buying their products and their credentials as members of organisations like the BUAV and PETA. Short of getting their board members to sign an affidavit that what they tell me is true that's all I can do if I want to continue having clean teeth and nice smelling pits. Which I do
thats all very noble , but going to the shops and buying whatever is there / you want is a much better way of living ,
now those are personal hygene products, what do you do when you get sick ? do you ask your doctor to get you ingredients lists0 -
-
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »I only have concern for myself and i dont posess a conscience so thats not going to happen
That comes across loud and clear from your posts. I feel sorry for you (which I'm sure you couldn't care less about, but I mean it) and wonder what's happened to make you so. Or maybe you have a psychiatric disorder or something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in which case you'd hardly be at fault but whatever it is I'm glad I don't have to come in personal contact with you. I say that with no rancour, it's just my opinion formed from reading the content of some of your posts.
In any case I feel like you're not really going to take on board anything I say on this matter as you have your mind made up already, and it doesn't tally with your moral stance (or lack of) anyway but I'll respond to the points you've made:Eric Cartman wrote: »passive consumer ? is your special toothpaste and the like more expensive than regular toothpaste
No. The toothpaste is actually cheaper than Colgate. The deodorant is more expensive but works out cheaper in the long run as it lasts the best part of a year.Eric Cartman wrote: », As far as Im concerned, if its in a shop being sold for a purpose it must do that in some way, whats everyones problems with large multinationals , at what point do small startup companies turn into evil corporations and what triggers the evil ? and who says with all the hard things to do in life that buying toothpaste shouldnt be one of the simple little bits that we do
Fit for purpose yes, in that it does what it's supposed to do (it could hardly be otherwise as they would then be guilty of breaking trading standards rules), but there are other considerations, for me anyway, to take on board when I buy something. Health, environmental, ethical, social...
It usually appears to go wrong when companies go public and trade on the stock exchange and share holders have to be kept happy. That's usually when the bottom line starts to far outweighs other considerations like ethics, environmental standards and so on.
There's nothing that difficult in doing a bit of research online or wherever about the ethics of the company you spend your money on. You work hard enough for it I'm sure. It's not an onerous task. There are lots of websites and books out there to help guide people as to the most ethical choices available. You just have to have the will to do so.
I find it worthwhile from a health point of view-I like to know what's going into or on my body; and I don't like supporting companies with questionable ethical and moral standards.Eric Cartman wrote: »just because something is tested on animals or made by a large corporation doesnt mean its worse for you than what you buy
I think I've answered why I don't agree with that.Eric Cartman wrote: »i didnt see that post and I apologize
No problemEric Cartman wrote: »just remember, not all corporations are evil, i think youve been watching too many michael moore movies
Hah, give me a break 'Eric', I don't see the world in such black and white terms as 'good' and 'evil', it's a false dichotomy. I know there are large companies with a good ethical, environmental track record and I support them where I find them. There's just not that many of them unfortunately, in my experience anyway so I prefer to support local small businesses where I can, and if that's not possible small scale foreign ones.
You can try and paint me as a looney left all you want with your Michael Moore jibe, you obviously like to put people in boxes like that so that they conform to your political viewpoint, but to do so is just intellectually laziness and an oversimplification of complex issues quite frankly.0 -
http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_10_50-disasters-of-animal-testing50 disasters of animal testing
50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement
Click here for a 33 fact summary of why animal testing does not work
1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]
2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]
4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]
5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals.
6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans.
7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.
8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.
9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.
10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.
11.Combined heart lung transplants were also "perfected" on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the
operation.[14]
12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]
13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.
14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.
15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.
16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.
17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths.
18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans.
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health.
20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.
21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]
22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.
23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]
24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.
25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.
26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22]
[23][24][25][26]
27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]
28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] "...excellent safety profile. No ...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species."
29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]
30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]
31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]
32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]
33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]
34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]
35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]
36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]
37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.
38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant.
39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders.
40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities."[47]
41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]
42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]
43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]
44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]
45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: "How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized."
46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]
47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result.
48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.
49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.
50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis
but kill humans.
Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIESDoes animal testing help human medicine?
33 facts to consider.
1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25% of the time."
3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin."
8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.
9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment.
18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
20) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
27) The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia."
28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed.
29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."
http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_8
Great post0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement