# UCLA Vivisector Arthur L. Rosenbaum dies at 69



## testmg80

*UCLA Vivisector Arthur L. Rosenbaum dies at 69 And About Damn Time!*

Los Angeles: Notorious UCLA primate vivisector Arthur Rosenbaum has finally died, at age 69. Although he claimed to only kill the occasional non-human primate, Rosenbaum was well known for torturing his subjects in order to publish still more useless papers on strabisimus, an eye movement disorder that has been effectively treated for decades. For his 36 years at UCLA, Rosenbaum, who served as chief of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus at the Jules Stein Eye Institute since 1980 and had been vice chairman of ophthalmology at the David Geffen School of Medicine since 1990, continued to annually obtain grants by promising the NIH he was going to deliver innovative clinical data "any day now". Institutions such as UCLA depend on such grant money to fund their expansion, and will not continue to employ researchers who do not obtain funding from outside the university.

Three years ago, animal advocates began targeting Rosenberg and his cruel and unnecessary research, saying that "Arthur Rosenbaum purports to simulate strabismus ("crossed" eye) by immobilizing primates in draconian head and body restraining devices, injecting the paralytic drug Botox into their ocular musculature and affixing metal coils (electronic force transducers) to their sclerae when a simple corrective procedure for the defect has been known and performed for at least the past six decades."

Rosenbaum's response was that he claimed he was primarily a surgeon with ties to only one animal-research project. In mid-2007, an unexploded firebomb was found under Rosenbaum's car at his home near UCLA; the Animal Liberation Brigade claimed responsibility for the incident.

Over subsequent months, activists staged many protests in Rosenbaum's neighborhood, using bullhorns and educational pamphlets to let his neighbor's and other members of the public know about the atrocities he was committing behind the tightly locked doors of his vivisection laboratory. At one point, unable to defend his work on ethical grounds, Rosenbaum told Science Magazine he "had not been involved in that research for a couple of years." Soon after the attempted firebombing of his luxury car and continued protests, Rosenbaum failed to renew his grants and retired from animal research.

On his office wall, Rosenbaum kept a framed golf ball and score card, a tribute to a hole-in-one he made in 2007 at Brentwood Country Club.

Besides Sandra, his wife of 25 years, Rosenbaum is survived by son Steven Burick and a sister, Jane Sitrin. A public memorial at UCLA is pending; activists will use the occasion to mourn the wasted lives and immeasurable suffering of Rosenbaum's non-human primate victims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact: (818) 227-5022
Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office
[email protected]


----------



## Colette

I know you are clearly anti-viv and pro animal rights, but are you seriously celebrating the death of another human being?
Words fail me.


----------



## Guest

Colette said:


> I know you are clearly anti-viv and pro animal rights, but are you seriously celebrating the death of another human being?
> Words fail me.


anyone who could do this just because he could is an evil monster and I certainly wont be shedding any tears either!!!

"Arthur Rosenbaum purports to simulate strabismus ("crossed" eye) by immobilizing primates in draconian head and body restraining devices, injecting the paralytic drug Botox into their ocular musculature and affixing metal coils (electronic force transducers) to their sclerae when a simple corrective procedure for the defect has been known and performed for at least the past six decades."


----------



## Cleo38

How disgusting that man who was in the last years of his life was hounded by extremists who even planted a firebomb under his car..... they must be so proud of their 'work'!!


----------



## testmg80

Colette said:


> I know you are clearly anti-viv and pro animal rights, but are you seriously celebrating the death of another human being?
> Words fail me.


Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Cleo38

From reading about this man it seems that he treated more than 10,000 children who were affected by a disorder called strabismus (cross eyes) & his techniques were then implemented all over the world ...... regarding his death: 'about damn time'??? I think not!!!!!


----------



## Guest

gosh im really shocked that anyone can think it fine to subject animals to experiments which are not only inhumane but totally unnecessary, and also for a condition which isnt even life threatening in humans:frown2: 


In a heavily redacted UCLA research protocol, Rosenbaum claims to be repeatedly using each primate up to six times for invasive experiments involving the injection of Botox into eye musculature and the gluing of metal coils to the eye schlerae. The survivors are then sold to other researchers for further invasive visual experiments. Rosenbaums laboratory is also torturing cats, which are to be used twice each and then killed or re-sold. The total number of animals being used by Rosenbaum is redacted in the reports. The pain category in these experiments is high and the protocol also mentions using "food/water deprivation for reasons other than surgical preparation."


The research protocol calls for restraining monkeys in a stereotactic head restraint device that keeps their heads from moving, while metallic coils are glued to their sclerae to allowing tracking of their eye movements. This is an inordinately cruel experiment purporting to study a usually self-limiting disease, for which a number of treatments are currently available and that can readily be studied in volunteer humans.


----------



## Cleo38

Shamen said:


> gosh im really shocked that anyone can think it fine to subject animals to experiments which are not only inhumane but totally unnecessary, and also for a condition which isnt even life threatening in humans:frown2:
> 
> In a heavily redacted UCLA research protocol, Rosenbaum claims to be repeatedly using each primate up to six times for invasive experiments involving the injection of Botox into eye musculature and the gluing of metal coils to the eye schlerae. The survivors are then sold to other researchers for further invasive visual experiments. Rosenbaum's laboratory is also torturing cats, which are to be used twice each and then killed or re-sold. The total number of animals being used by Rosenbaum is redacted in the reports. The pain category in these experiments is high and the protocol also mentions using "food/water deprivation for reasons other than surgical preparation."
> 
> The research protocol calls for restraining monkeys in a stereotactic head restraint device that keeps their heads from moving, while metallic coils are glued to their sclerae to allowing tracking of their eye movements. This is an inordinately cruel experiment purporting to study a usually self-limiting disease, for which a number of treatments are currently available and that can readily be studied in volunteer humans.


Regardless of the arguements for & against vivisection I find it appalling that a man who carried out work which improved the lives of thousands of children directly (& maybe hundreds of thousands more indirectly) was hounded during the last years of his life by extremists. Not only that but had an incendary device planted under his car which could have killed/seriously injured him or anyone near the vehicle.
The heading regarding his death ending ....."about damn time" makes me so angry. I would love to know how the author him/herself has contributed to improving the lives of throusands of people.


----------



## Paul Dunham

Colette said:


> I know you are clearly anti-viv and pro animal rights, but are you seriously celebrating the death of another human being?
> Words fail me.


I can't beleive you said that. There are plenty of people the world would be better off without. I've come across some very sadistic cruel people who enjoy their killing. They almost orgasm over it. I'm talking about killing people. Yes I would celebrate the deaths of these people.

Another human being? What make you think all human life is sacred?


----------



## GillyR

Dont know enough about this guy to comment personally.....

But i agree with Paul, whilst i think life is sacred...there are certain people in this world that would have been better off never have been born. 

Just because someone is human, doesnt mean we have to feel sorry for the passing....especially if you do not agree with their principles or morals.


----------



## Cleo38

GillyR said:


> Dont know enough about this guy to comment personally.....
> 
> But i agree with Paul, whilst i think life is sacred...there are certain people in this world that would have been better off never have been born.
> 
> Just because someone is human, doesnt mean we have to feel sorry for the passing....especially if you do not agree with their principles or morals.


We are talking about the death of a man whose expertise & research *IMPROVED *the lives of thousands of children ........ do you really think someone like this should never have been born?


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Regardless of the arguements for & against vivisection I find it appalling that a man who carried out work which improved the lives of thousands of children directly (& maybe hundreds of thousands more indirectly) was hounded during the last years of his life by extremists. Not only that but had an incendary device planted under his car which could have killed/seriously injured him or anyone near the vehicle.
> The heading regarding his death ending ....."about damn time" makes me so angry. I would love to know how the author him/herself has contributed to improving the lives of throusands of people.


i dont condone any violence just like i dont condone any cruelty to animals!... just because what he did to those primates wasnt against the law dosent make him any less cruel than the man in the street who tortures animals, so as i said i wont be shedding any tears!

do you feel primate experimentation is justified for any non life threatening condition no matter how minor then?


----------



## Cleo38

I don't think his actions were cruel, it is very different to the person who beats their dog. One person would torturing animals for no reason other than sadistic pleasure whilst another one is carrying out work that although, at times may cause suffering to an animal, would benefit perhaps millions of people. 

I don't like the idea of animals in pain or suffering but then again I don't want research to end & unfortunately that means using animals at the moment. I wish there were viable alternatives in place but I want people to have cures/medication available to them to help with existing conditions, prolong their lives, help alleviate pain, etc.

I can't comment whether the syndrome he was researching was 'minor' although judging by some of the pictures of people affected by this (although not life threatening) it does look as if some suffered a difficult impairment.

My intention as I said before was not about vivisection/research but more about the title of the article posted & the actions of extremists mentioned in the article.


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I don't think his actions were cruel, it is very different to the person who beats their dog. One person would torturing animals for no reason other than sadistic pleasure whilst another one is carrying out work that although, at times may cause suffering to an animal, would benefit perhaps millions of people.
> 
> I don't like the idea of animals in pain or suffering but then again I don't want research to end & unfortunatelt that means using animals at the moment. I want people to have cures/medication available to them to help with existing conditions, prolong their lives, help alleviate pain, etc.
> 
> I can't comment whether the syndrome he was researching was 'minor' although judging by some of the pictures of people affected by this (although not life threatening) it does look as if some suffered a difficult impairment.
> 
> My intention as I said before was not about vivisection/research but more about the title of the article posted & the actions of extremists mentioned in the article.


he did research on primates which could have been gathered from humane experiments and these experiments were absolutley horrendous, primates are intelligent sentient animals and to inflict this kind of torture on them for every single ailment/condition the human race suffers is just appaling and shows just how we regard other species:frown:

many of these primates are on the brink of extinction do you feel our species is right to exploit them and push them closer to the edge? even when many scientists think these experiments are at best dubious at worst down right dangerous and misleading!...

i think these statements are shocking!...82% of GPs are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and animal experiments have never been formally evaluated and the Home Office has no plans to do so.


----------



## Guinevere13

The man didn't even use anaesthetic on the poor animals while doing his "experiments" and he did it time and time again when they weren't necessary. You surely can't believe that this was justified whether you believe in experimentation or not. It is bloody inhumane. It IS cruel and it IS unnecessary. The children's problems could be sorted without animal torture.

I don't agree with the things protesters do as it doesn't help or endear people to the cause but I don't want anyone doing animal experiments on my behalf.


----------



## Cleo38

Guinevere13 said:


> The man didn't even use anaesthetic on the poor animals while doing his "experiments" and he did it time and time again when they weren't necessary. You surely can't believe that this was justified whether you believe in experimentation or not. It is bloody inhumane. It IS cruel and it IS unnecessary. The children's problems could be sorted without animal torture.
> 
> I don't agree with the things protesters do as it doesn't help or endear people to the cause but I don't want anyone doing animal experiments on my behalf.


Could you explain how the childrens problems could have been solved using a differemnt method?

Also, if you feel so strongly about animlas being tested on your behalf I take it you use alternative medicines & don't take any medications or have any procedures that have been tested or developed using animal experimentation?


----------



## Waterlily

After reading how he treated the poor things, I wont be crying for him either surely to help children you dont need to torture an animal there are humane ways I am sure. What the heck makes the lives of humans more valuable then a primates, why because we are maybe smarter ? we are an arrogant and selfish race putting ourselves before nature.


----------



## GillyR

Has anyone got a link to his work....??


----------



## Cleo38

http://www.jsei.org/About/PDF/EYEFall2003.pdf

Jules Stein Eye Institute leads way in patient care and research / UCLA Today

A couple I have found.

I know that vivisection is obviously an emotive subject but I think it should be kept factual.

My original point was not regarding animal experimentation but the fact that a man who had carried out fantastic work & improved the lives of thousands of children & their families should be hounded in his last years by extremists. 
I find it quite sickening that doctors/scientists/researchers are subjected to this & yet those who carry out these hate campaings will quite readily use the services & products devloped by the very people they despise.


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> http://www.jsei.org/About/PDF/EYEFall2003.pdf
> 
> Jules Stein Eye Institute leads way in patient care and research / UCLA Today
> 
> A couple I have found.
> 
> I know that vivisection is obviously an emotive subject but I think it should be kept factual.
> 
> My original point was not regarding animal experimentation but the fact that a man who had carried out fantastic work & improved the lives of thousands of children & their families should be hounded in his last years by extremists.
> I find it quite sickening that doctors/scientists/researchers are subjected to this & yet those who carry out these hate campaings will quite readily use the services & products devloped by the very people they despise.


im afraid what he did to those primates imo was anything but fantastic, they suffered for nothing as said in an earlier post "a simple corrective procedure for the defect has been known and performed for at least the past six decades"!


----------



## Cleo38

So why are there so many articles praising his techniques & parents comments regarding their childrens health improvements?


----------



## Guinevere13

Cleo38 said:


> So why are there so many articles praising his techniques & parents comments regarding their childrens health improvements?


Perhaps because it is about children? As you say it is an emotive subject and they use publicity to their advantage.

Oh, and despite it being none of your business, I try very hard not to use any medicines. I use natural alternatives where possible. In this day and age it is appalling that I have very little choice in whether the medicines prescribed are tested on animals or not. Even the iron tablets I am sometimes prescribed for iron deficiency anaemia (which I don't take) are coated with gelatine and when I asked why, neither the doctor or the pharmacist could explain why. It is not only vegetarians that could be affected, what about Bhuddists, Muslims, Hindus etc who can't eat beef products??? Maybe they should listen more to peoples views rather than going for the cheap and cruel alternative. It is not necessary. If you would like to know about other alternatives to this testing, try Googling them like I did.


----------



## Cleo38

Guinevere13 said:


> Perhaps because it is about children? As you say it is an emotive subject and they use publicity to their advantage.


Not like the animal rights movement at all then!! :lol:


----------



## Guinevere13

Not saying it doesn't happen on both sides. Like I said, I don't agree with violence, it doesn't work. Nor did I agree with letting the mink free from the fur farms. It doesn't mean that what lay behind it was right.


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> So why are there so many articles praising his techniques & parents comments regarding their childrens health improvements?


obviously they will praise him after all he was the surgeon who successfully operated on them there will have been thousands of surgeons who have also successfully performed this procedure without inflicting suffering on primates!.


----------



## Paul Dunham

Sorry I've been away for a week. I haven't had a chance to contribute.
I don't completely disagree with vivisection when it's completely targeted at saving human life. But I do completely disagree with these repeat experiments purely for educational purposes and of course those experiments performed for cosmetics. Cruelty for cruely sake. That is wrong.

Last year I returned from six months work in Mauritius. Mauritius is the largest exporter of Long Tailed Macaque monkeys for scientific research. They export them as secretly as they can and only bring them into the UK at night. I met a guy who works at a monkey farm and he told me they have a hundred thousand monkeys individually in cages ready to sell for almost ten thousand dollars each to the scientific community. He said the sad sad thing is every single one of those monkeys will be killed. Many in non essential experiments.


----------



## Guest

Colette said:


> I know you are clearly anti-viv and pro animal rights, but are you seriously celebrating the death of another human being?
> Words fail me.


Looks that way!! And PROUD to admit! I AM too!
Don't the poor animals he tortured feel pain I ask you? Anyone who inflicts pain on any living breathing thing deserves to go to Hell!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Looks that way!! And PROUD to admit! I AM too!
> Don't the poor animals he tortured feel pain I ask you? Anyone who inflicts pain on any living breathing thing deserves to go to Hell!


I take it then you don't eat meat, fish, dairy products, wear any leather items or take any medication, have any form of surgery that may have involved animals during research then? If you do you would also be participating & fueling industrys whose sole purpose is based on animal production which in turn causes suffering.


----------



## Paul Dunham

Cleo38 said:


> Regardless of the arguements for & against vivisection I find it appalling that a man who carried out work which improved the lives of thousands of children directly (& maybe hundreds of thousands more indirectly) was hounded during the last years of his life by extremists. Not only that but had an incendary device planted under his car which could have killed/seriously injured him or anyone near the vehicle.
> The heading regarding his death ending ....."about damn time" makes me so angry. I would love to know how the author him/herself has contributed to improving the lives of throusands of people.


You can use the same argument to justify what the Nazi's did to people during the war and we all disagree with that.

An anything goes policy to vivisection is wrong now matter what the benefits. Does the end justify the means? Is it OK to experiment on babies if ends are beneficial to mankind? No, this guy went too far.

I completely disagree with the methods used by animal rights extremists and I feel they should be sent to jail. These people are just as wrong as he is.

Just because we disagree with what he does, don't put us in the same category as these lunatics.


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I take it then you don't eat meat, fish, dairy products, wear any leather items or take any medication, have any form of surgery that may have involved animals during research then? If you do you would also be participating & fueling industrys whose sole purpose is based on animal production which in turn causes suffering.


If I choose to wish bad on any person who has caused agonizing suffering whereby it could have been avoided then that is my choice! Irrespective of whether I eat meat, wear leather or use soap to wash in. I'll thank you to remember that!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> If I choose to wish bad on any person who has caused agonizing suffering whereby it could have been avoided then that is my choice! Irrespective of whether I eat meat, wear leather or use soap to wash in. I'll thank you to remember that!


It is not irrespective ... it's hypocrisy. If you eat meat then you could also argue that you can avoid that - very easily in fact. It's so easy to reap the benefits created by animal testing but to be so judgemental.

I don't agree with unnecesary testing or cruelty & do think that regulations need to be tightened up but it's a typical knee kjerk reaction to start by condemning scientists whose work has actually improved the lives of many others ... oh sorry not condemning but actually rejoicing in their death!

Oh yes the old comparing scientists to the nazis arguement ..... again!!!! please .....


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> It is not irrespective ... it's hypocrisy. If you eat meat then you could also argue that you can avoid that - very easily in fact. It's so easy to reap the benefits created by animal testing but to be so judgemental.
> 
> I don't agree with unnecesary testing or cruelty & do think that regulations need to be tightened up but it's a typical knee kjerk reaction to start by condemning scientists whose work has actually improved the lives of many others ... oh sorry not condemning but actually rejoicing in their death!
> 
> Oh yes the old comparing scientists to the nazis arguement ..... again!!!! please .....


As I said in my previous post on this subject, it is nothing to do with you or anyone else whether I eat meat or not! And your claim that is is hypocrisy to do so it somewhat flawed also! Why do you think that people (mostly meateaters) have gone to the extreme to guarantee better welfare for the meat that ends up on their plates, (pig farming and battery hens spring to mind) There are meats that I would never consider eating due to what I consider to be inhumane rearing programmes, that is not to say that everyone has to agree with what I consider to be inhumane! 
Have you ever heard of free range farming?

Again I say to you I shall NOT be celebrating the life of this person, who performed such horrific experiments and caused unnessisary suffering to primates.

And remember, everyone contributing to this thread in welcome to their opinions without be labelled a 'hypocrite' I shall ask you 'nicely' once more! please remember that!


----------



## noushka05

what a sick individual why would anyone do that to animals when there was already a procedure to correct the condition, obviously the lives of those primates meant zilch to him, no tears here for him either

and i dont agree that people who take medicines that have been tested on animals are hypocrites, if there is no cruelty free alternatives then what choice do they have? it does not negate their right to oppose animal research and people shouldnt be emotionally blackmailing anyone who has a moral dialemma into accepting animal research by playing the 'hypocrite' card.

this is why people should be questioning using primates and other animals in cruel experiments

'Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless.' - Dr James Gallagher, Director of Medical Research Lederle Laboratories



Paul Dunham said:


> Last year I returned from six months work in Mauritius. Mauritius is the largest exporter of Long Tailed Macaque monkeys for scientific research. They export them as secretly as they can and only bring them into the UK at night. I met a guy who works at a monkey farm and he told me they have a hundred thousand monkeys individually in cages ready to sell for almost ten thousand dollars each to the scientific community. He said the sad sad thing is every single one of those monkeys will be killed. Many in non essential experiments.


how awful those poor monkeys destined to end their lives in what only can be described as Hell!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> As I said in my previous post on this subject, it is nothing to do with you or anyone else whether I eat meat or not! And your claim that is is hypocrisy to do so it somewhat flawed also! Why do you think that people (mostly meateaters) have gone to the extreme to guarantee better welfare for the meat that ends up on their plates, (pig farming and battery hens spring to mind) There are meats that I would never consider eating due to what I consider to be inhumane rearing programmes, that is not to say that everyone has to agree with what I consider to be inhumane!
> Have you ever heard of free range farming?
> 
> Again I say to you I shall NOT be celebrating the life of this person, who performed such horrific experiments and caused unnessisary suffering to primates.
> 
> And remember, everyone contributing to this thread in welcome to their opinions without be labelled a 'hypocrite' I shall ask you 'nicely' once more! please remember that!


Free range farming is obviously better for rearing animals but whether you like it or not at their time of death they will experience suffering to a certain degree. Your post stated that anyone who did this deserves to go to hell so how can people who kill animals for meat (& in that case those who eat it) be exempt.

My original post was not an arguement for or against vivisection it was simply stating how disgusting it was to celebrate the death of another person who was not a criminal, child molester, rapist, etc but a doctor.

Again, do those who are glad he's dead turn their backs on conventional medicine, surgery, etc ....no they don't, they argue how awful it is & how these doctors are torturers, etc whilst still accepting treatments - hypocrites!


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> Free range farming is obviously better for rearing animals but whether you like it or not at their time of death they will experience suffering to a certain degree. Your post stated that anyone who did this deserves to go to hell so how can people who kill animals for meat (& in that case those who eat it) be exempt.
> 
> My original post was not an arguement for or against vivisection it was simply stating how disgusting it was to celebrate the death of another person who was not a criminal, child molester, rapist, etc but a doctor.
> 
> Again, do those who are glad he's dead turn their backs on conventional medicine, surgery, etc ....no they don't, they argue how awful it is & how these doctors are torturers, etc whilst still accepting treatments - hypocrites!


its not hypocrital if there is no choice!

and back to the surgeon in question.... i dont think you're grasping the fact that he did inhumane experiments on primates without using anesthetics for a condition for which there was already a procedure to correct it which had been performed for decades!


----------



## Cleo38

noushka05 said:


> its not hypocrital if there is no choice!
> 
> and back to the surgeon in question.... i dont think you're grasping the fact that he did inhumane experiments on primates without using anesthetics for a condition for which there was already a procedure to correct it which had been performed for decades!


And I I did say earlier .... people do not seem to grasp that they are rejoicing in the death of a man who WAS NOT A CRMINAL BUT A DOCTOR !!

It is hypocritical to wish death on the very people who save lives, improve lives, etc ....I am not in favour of all animal experiments, I do realise that there needs to be tighter regulation, etc but recognise without the hysterics that the people who work in these labs are not monsters they are ordinary people.

Anyway there are choices ... there's loads of 'alternative' medicines - personally I wouldn't use them as I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest they work but plenty of people try these & swear by them so if animal testing is so flawed, the doctors are torturers, etc then why not use alternative therapies instead?


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> And I I did say earlier .... people do not seem to grasp that they are rejoicing in the death of a man who WAS NOT A CRMINAL BUT A DOCTOR !!
> 
> It is hypocritical to wish death on the very people who save lives, improve lives, etc ....I am not in favour of all animal experiments, I do realise that there needs to be tighter regulation, etc but recognise without the hysterics that the people who work in these labs are not monsters they are ordinary people.
> 
> Anyway there are choices ... there's loads of 'alternative' medicines - personally I wouldn't use them as I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest they work but plenty of people try these & swear by them so if animal testing is so flawed, the doctors are torturers, etc then why not use alternative therapies instead?


OK! A couple of you have had your say! NOW ITS MY TURN!! There seems to be a degree of tunneled vison here! Hycporacy being the main card!! NOT my words, but food for thought!!

Question!! Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested medicines?

No it would only be hypocritical if you had a 'cruelty-free' alternative, but chose to use the animal tested product. Unfortunately, all new medicines undergo extensive animal testing as a regulatory requirement before they are widely used in humans. Therefore, consumer choice has effectively been taken away from us. Almost everything has been tested on animals somewhere, at some time: even water, salt and olive oil!

If lack of consumer choice means we cannot avoid using medicines that have been tested on animals, it does not negate our right to oppose animal research per se.

Just because animals were used to test a medicine, does not mean that its discovery or development depended upon animal experiments or that animal experiments were a useful part of the process. Nor does it mean that it is impossible in the future for drug development to be free of animal use. Animal testing cannot ensure the safety or effectiveness of a new medicine, as this is only established after it has been widely used in patients. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail to be suitable for humans.

Some anti-vivisectionists do choose to reject the use of all orthodox drugs but this is a purely individual choice. It should not perpetuate the erroneous view that ending animal experiments means an end to modern medicine. It does not. We accept the need to use drugs now whilst working to make changes for the future, based on the firm belief that non-animal methods offer a safer and more reliable route to developing drugs and treatments.

Artical above was copied, and are not my words, but sums this up to a tea imo!

Now my views! The person of whom were are talking went to extreme depths of cruetly to create something that did not need creating! There was already an alternative available!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Again, do those who are glad he's dead turn their backs on conventional medicine, surgery, etc ....no they don't, they argue how awful it is & how these doctors are torturers, etc whilst still accepting treatments - hypocrites!


And please refrain from calling those who do NOT share your views Hypocrites! 
Thank you & goodnight!


----------



## Cleo38

It's not about sharing my views. It more about my disgust at happiness being expressed for the death of doctor.


----------



## Guest

And mine are against a 'doctor' who experimented on primates without anesthetic to create a procedure that did not need creating! There was a tecnigues already there that did not need perfecting!

. 

Check out what this man did! and then come back with a good arguement and I may just bother to reply!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> It's not about sharing my views. It more about my disgust at happiness being expressed for the death of doctor.


If they want to show their happiness then that is their preogertive! Shows a compassinate human being to me! Of which this world is now so sadly lacking! Shame there are not more of them!

Again!! I on behalf of all who have voiced their disgust against this person object to being called a hypocrite!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> And mine are against a 'doctor' who experimented on primates without anesthetic to create a procedure that did not need creating! There was a tecnigues already there that did not need perfecting!
> 
> .
> 
> Check out what this man did! and then come back with a good arguement and I may just bother to reply!


I have checked what this man 'did' & also read reports from the parents whose children benefited from his techniques & research.

I have then read some articles on the anti vivisection websites :Yawn:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I have checked what this man 'did' & also read reports from the parents whose children benefited from his techniques & research.
> 
> I have then read some articles on the anti vivisection websites :Yawn:


And your point is!!!!!
We are not talking about a pioneer of medicine here! But a mere surgeon!!
They say Jack the ripper could have been a surgeon!!! and your views on him are!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> And your point is!!!!!
> We are not talking about a pioneer of medicine here! But a mere surgeon!!
> They say Jack the ripper could have been a surgeon!!! and your views on him are!


Really? So the parents whose children were affected but lives improved after surgery were just exaggerating then?

As for Jack the Ripper .... :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Really? So the parents whose children were affected but lives improved after surgery were just exaggerating then?
> 
> As for Jack the Ripper .... :lol::lol::lol:


Agh! at last!!!! I finally have your attention!

Guess Jack the Ripper did it!

You have continuosly skirted around any posts questioning the necessity for those experiments, and more importantly the need to perform such without anesthetic! All you have come back with is - ask the parents! or labelling members hypocrites! This is getting rather repetitive!

And for your information - You are asking a parent! and I am replying! My daughters was diagnoised with strabismus at the age of 3.5 this was sucessfully repaired without the need for surgery or drugs ! There has been many repairs more sever cases that would have been sucessful without the need for such unnessisary cruelty!

I am going to ask you just one question! (I won't hold my breathe) Why were his experiments conducted on these primates without the use of anesthetic! please reply to this one!! as it was hardly that any surgery following on for these experiments were going to be performed without such!

And it does not take Heinstien (which he wasn't) to work out why he has created so much hatred against himself!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Agh!  at last!!!! I finally have your attention!
> 
> Guess Jack the Ripper did it!
> 
> You have continuosly skirted around any posts questioning the necessity for those experiments, and more importantly the need to perform such without anesthetic! All you have come back with is - ask the parents! or labelling members hypocrites! This is getting rather repetitive!
> 
> And for your information - You are asking a parent! and I am replying! My daughters was diagnoised with strabismus at the age of 3.5 this was sucessfully repaired without the need for surgery or drugs ! There has been many repairs more sever cases that would have been sucessful without the need for such unnessisary cruelty!
> 
> I am going to ask you just one question! (I won't hold my breathe) Why were his experiments conducted on these primates without the use of anesthetic! please reply to this one!! as it was hardly that any surgery following on for these experiments were going to be performed without such!
> 
> And it does not take Heinstien (which he wasn't) to work out why he has created so much hatred against himself!


Finally have my attention???? :confused1: As I have said, time & time & time again ..... my initial comments were directed at the opening post that celebrated the death of a man who improved the lives of thousands of children.
It really is a load of rubbish to post perccentages regarding the numbers of drugs failing, statistics can easily be found on the internet but on further investigation show to be either taken out of context or misleading. The 90% of drugs failing is a classic example - this isn't true. 
If your daughter suffered with strabismus then you are lucky that she didn't need surgery - do you really think that the parents of children who did have corrective surrgery submitted them to an unecessary procedure? Do you really think they didn't consider all the options & implications available to them & make an informed decision?
If you look at many research papers, medical publications they all list Dr Rosenbaum as a pioneer, as helping develop new techniques that have been adopted all over the world. In NO MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC article have I found critcisms or suggestions that this woirk was either seriously flawed or unnecessary. - I may be wrong, there may be some SCIENTISTS or RESEARCHERS who can dispute or his work but all the articles I have read from the anti - viv websites churn out the same old tired statistics, the same images regarding vivisection, the same exmples of drugs that have failed (funny how they ignore the MILLIONS that have benefited people all over the world)
Can you advise what options there were available then if all his (lifes) work was unnecessary - you should've been there, you could've pointed this out to him! :thumbup:
I have also searched & cannot find any information regarding research carried out with out the use of anesthetics although this may have occured due to anesthetics causing vomiting. After reading a paper written by Dr Rosenbaum (& other regarding eye surgery) it seems that GA cause vomiting & nausea after the surgery, eye surgery in itself causes high instances post operative nausea/vomiting & this is very high in children (as were kost of Dr Rosenbaums patients) a GA would not be a likely option. Further reading shows that in most instances (I use that term although as I cannot find any example that blatantly shows that any form of anesthetic WASN'T used) a topical anesthetic was used as this was the best option.
Preventing vomitting may not seem important but can cause serious implications including dehydration, bleeding, wound disruption by retching, etc

Do you seriously think that all involved in medical research are monsters who enjoy inflicting pain? I'm not arguing that in some cases animals are mistreated, guidelines ignored & unnecesaary experiments carried out. Of course this goes on & needs to stop but we have to accept that the use of animals, at present, is unfortunately the only way research can continue in some areas.
Again returning to my original arguement, this was a man who had a bomb planted under/in his car & was hounded in the last few years of his life ...... & you think that was deserved???? I'm sure his wife & children deserve the stress & unhappiness of it all as well do they? or they probably bought it all on themselves?

PS - I think it was EINSTEIN you were referring to ...... not sure who HEINSTEIN is ....something to do with beans??!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Finally have my attention???? :confused1: As I have said, time & time & time again ..... my initial comments were directed at the opening post that celebrated the death of a man who improved the lives of thousands of children.
> It really is a load of rubbish to post perccentages regarding the numbers of drugs failing, statistics can easily be found on the internet but on further investigation show to be either taken out of context or misleading. The 90% of drugs failing is a classic example - this isn't true.
> If your daughter suffered with strabismus then you are lucky that she didn't need surgery - do you really think that the parents of children who did have corrective surrgery submitted them to an unecessary procedure? Do you really think they didn't consider all the options & implications available to them & make an informed decision?
> If you look at many research papers, medical publications they all list Dr Rosenbaum as a pioneer, as helping develop new techniques that have been adopted all over the world. In NO MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC article have I found critcisms or suggestions that this woirk was either seriously flawed or unnecessary. - I may be wrong, there may be some SCIENTISTS or RESEARCHERS who can dispute or his work but all the articles I have read from the anti - viv websites churn out the same old tired statistics, the same images regarding vivisection, the same exmples of drugs that have failed (funny how they ignore the MILLIONS that have benefited people all over the world)
> Can you advise what options there were available then if all his (lifes) work was unnecessary - you should've been there, you could've pointed this out to him! :thumbup:
> I have also searched & cannot find any information regarding research carried out with out the use of anesthetics although this may have occured due to anesthetics casuign vomiting which is especially high after. After reading a paper written by Dr Rosenbaum (& other regarding eye surgery) it seems that GA cause vomiting & nausea after the surgery, eye surgery in itself causes high instances post operative nausea/vomiting & this is very high in children (as were kost of Dr Rosenbaums patients) a GA would not be a likely option. further reading shows that in most instances (I use that term although as I cannot find any example that blatantly shows that any form of anesthetic WASN'T used) a topical anesthetic was used as this was the best option.
> Preventing vomitting may not seem important but can cause serious implications including dehydration, bleeding, wound disruption by retching, etc
> 
> Do you seriously think that all involved in medical research are monsters who enjoy inflicting pain? I'm not arguing that in some cases animals are mistreated, guidelines ignored & unnecesaary experiments carried out Of course this goes on & needs to stop but we have to accept that the use of animals at present is unfortunately the only way research can continue in some areas.
> Again returning to my original arguement, this was a man who had a bomb planted under/in his car & was hounded in the last few years of his life ...... & you think that was deserved
> 
> PS - I think it was EINSTEIN you were referring to ...... not sure who HEINSTEIN is ....something to do with beans??!


Lager as it happens sweetheart!
I'm off out now so shall digest this on my return!
But just one point you appear to have missed!
And this is my brunt of 'your' agruement!

What right have you to call those who feel no sorrow over the passing of this man Hypocrites?

Because that has really bugged me!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Looks that way!! And PROUD to admit! I AM too!
> Don't the poor animals he tortured feel pain I ask you? *Anyone who inflicts pain on any living breathing thing deserves to go to Hell*!


Your initial quote I think .... very misguided ..... as I said especially if you eat meat/take drugs as you are involved in this whether you like it or not!! I stand by what i have said about hypocracy


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> Finally have my attention???? :confused1: As I have said, time & time & time again ..... my initial comments were directed at the opening post that celebrated the death of a man who improved the lives of thousands of children.
> It really is a load of rubbish to post perccentages regarding the numbers of drugs failing, statistics can easily be found on the internet but on further investigation show to be either taken out of context or misleading. The 90% of drugs failing is a classic example - this isn't true.
> If your daughter suffered with strabismus then you are lucky that she didn't need surgery - do you really think that the parents of children who did have corrective surrgery submitted them to an unecessary procedure? Do you really think they didn't consider all the options & implications available to them & make an informed decision?
> If you look at many research papers, medical publications they all list Dr Rosenbaum as a pioneer, as helping develop new techniques that have been adopted all over the world. In NO MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC article have I found critcisms or suggestions that this woirk was either seriously flawed or unnecessary. - I may be wrong, there may be some SCIENTISTS or RESEARCHERS who can dispute or his work but all the articles I have read from the anti - viv websites churn out the same old tired statistics, the same images regarding vivisection, the same exmples of drugs that have failed (funny how they ignore the MILLIONS that have benefited people all over the world)
> Can you advise what options there were available then if all his (lifes) work was unnecessary - you should've been there, you could've pointed this out to him! :thumbup:
> I have also searched & cannot find any information regarding research carried out with out the use of anesthetics although this may have occured due to anesthetics causing vomiting. After reading a paper written by Dr Rosenbaum (& other regarding eye surgery) it seems that GA cause vomiting & nausea after the surgery, eye surgery in itself causes high instances post operative nausea/vomiting & this is very high in children (as were kost of Dr Rosenbaums patients) a GA would not be a likely option. Further reading shows that in most instances (I use that term although as I cannot find any example that blatantly shows that any form of anesthetic WASN'T used) a topical anesthetic was used as this was the best option.
> Preventing vomitting may not seem important but can cause serious implications including dehydration, bleeding, wound disruption by retching, etc
> 
> Do you seriously think that all involved in medical research are monsters who enjoy inflicting pain? I'm not arguing that in some cases animals are mistreated, guidelines ignored & unnecesaary experiments carried out. Of course this goes on & needs to stop but we have to accept that the use of animals, at present, is unfortunately the only way research can continue in some areas.
> Again returning to my original arguement, this was a man who had a bomb planted under/in his car & was hounded in the last few years of his life ...... & you think that was deserved???? I'm sure his wife & children deserve the stress & unhappiness of it all as well do they? or they probably bought it all on themselves?
> 
> PS - I think it was EINSTEIN you were referring to ...... not sure who HEINSTEIN is ....something to do with beans??!


some people on this thread obviously value the lives of the primates more than others, some feel that experimenting on them and ultimatley causing them suffering and eventual death to research an eye defect isnt justifiable, especially when other surgeons have been correcting these eye defects for many decades before ....simple as!

and although i dont agree with the violence towards him i couldnt give a toss that hes died, infact i feel as much for him as he did for the animals he 'used'.

i dont suppose you'll read or even believe these non bias quotes but i'll put them on just incase:thumbup:

There are many organisations of doctors and scientists opposed to the animal model in medical research because of the harm it does to humans. Their arguments are strictly scientific. Check out Americans For Medical Advancement | AFMA -'Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons, predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless.' - Dr James Gallagher, Director of Medical Research Lederle Laboratories the website of Europeans For Medical Advancement (EFMA) and Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA). According to Dr Ray Greek, Medical Director for both organisations:

'Research money and personnel need to be directed towards methodologies that are viable. Using an archaic methodology like animal models to combat 21st century disease is more than foolish, it is immoral.'

'Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medication, but they even have the opposite effect.' - Dr Kurt Fickentscher, University of Bonn

'Work on [the polio vaccine] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.' - Dr Albert Sabin, inventor of the polio vaccine

The truth is, by using animals as surrogate humans we're not only hurting animals, we're hurting ourselves. 'Animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans.' - Dr Irwin Bross, former Director of Sloan-Kettering the largest cancer research institute in the world

Even the Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, the leading manual on animal experimentation, stated 'Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans.'

'The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans.' - Dr Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute

Everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned from studying people with the disease. But that has not prevented millions of pounds and animals' lives from being wasted in a fruitless search for an animal 'model'. "What good does it do you to test something [a vaccine] in a monkey? You find five years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realise that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years" - Dr Mark Feinberg, leading AIDS researcher.

at the end of the day its all about money, vivisection is big business. The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world and its interests are strongly protected by governments. Animal experiments are in the industry's interests because they can be used to market their products more quickly and - most importantly - they provide a legal defence for the company when people are injured or killed by ADRs(adverse drugs reactions). They will argue that, having carried out the animal tests, no blame can be laid at their door.


----------



## Cleo38

RE: Dr Sabin ..... yet again another infamous misquotation trotted out.....

The work on [polio] prevention was long delayed by... misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys"
Albert Sabin and his work on the polio vaccine is often cited as being an instance where animal research was misleading.

He has been frequently misquoted.

Quote:

"the work on [polio] prevention was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."

The quotation has been used to illustrate the lack of belief in animal studies by a prominent member of the scientific community. However, it has been taken out of context, and does not accurately describe his view. Americans for Medical Advancement are one such group who have used the quote out of context.

One place the quote features is Aping Science - A Critical Analysis of Research at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Committee on Animal Models in Biomedical Research - 1995. p 21-22:

"In truth, the principle monkey model of polio infection was fundamentally misleading, and, as a result, it misdirected preventive measures and delayed vaccine development. As Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, explained in 1984


> "
> 
> After being misquoted extensively by these groups Savin felt the need to clarify his position. He wrote to Sharon M. Russell, 13 September 1991:
> 
> "My own experience of over 60 years in biomedical research amply demonstrated that without the use of animals and of human beings, it would have been impossible to acquire the important knowledge needed to prevent much suffering and premature death not only among humans but also among animals."
> 
> He also wrote in the Winston-Salem Journal on 20th March 1992:
> 
> "Without the use of animals and human beings, it would have been impossible to acquire the important knowledge needed to prevent much suffering and premature death not only among humans, but also among animals"
> 
> His widow Heloisa also believed that this misquote was importnat enough to be corrected, and Sabin's position clarified, even after his death. She wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal 18th October 1995 titled Animal Research Saves Human Lives in which she said:
> 
> "Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year. There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals, a very large number of animals, Albert told a reporter shortly before his death in 1993. Animals are still needed to test every new batch of vaccine that is produced for today's children."


----------



## Guest

Great copy and paste! already read that several times over!


----------



## Cleo38

Also you quote Dr Mark Feinbrrg regarding AIDS ... again another misquote. If you read what is actually on the website you have mentioned MFMA they use this quote by him regarding misquotaions used previously by the organisation .....

"Elsewhere in the book, we also said: "Monkeys do not die of AIDS and humans do" but that statement was not attributed to Dr Feinberg as it was ours.

Compare that with the below from The Animal Research War (Palgrave 2008).

When Dr. Feinberg had a chance to speak for himself, he said, "There are many instances where the use of animal model research is absolutely essential for evaluating the safety and efficacy of [AIDS] candidate vaccines. Moreover, the statement that "Monkeys do not get AIDS; humans do," is completely false. The SIV [simian immunodeficiency virus] infection model for AIDS has been extremely important for understanding critical aspects of AIDS pathogenesis that cannot be studied in humans. I do not wish to be held responsible for comments . . . that have been so removed from their context that they no longer convey the meaning I had intended." (Personal email from Mark Feinberg, MD, PhD, to Charles Nicoll, PhD."

This is from the website that you have suggested


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Also you quote Dr Mark Feinbrrg regarding AIDS ... again another misquote. If you read what is actually on the website you have mentioned MFMA they use this quote by him regarding misquotaions used previously by the organisation .....
> 
> "Elsewhere in the book, we also said: Monkeys do not die of AIDS and humans do but that statement was not attributed to Dr Feinberg as it was ours.
> 
> Compare that with the below from The Animal Research War (Palgrave 2008).
> 
> When Dr. Feinberg had a chance to speak for himself, he said, There are many instances where the use of animal model research is absolutely essential for evaluating the safety and efficacy of [AIDS] candidate vaccines. Moreover, the statement that "Monkeys do not get AIDS; humans do," is completely false. The SIV [simian immunodeficiency virus] infection model for AIDS has been extremely important for understanding critical aspects of AIDS pathogenesis that cannot be studied in humans. I do not wish to be held responsible for comments . . . that have been so removed from their context that they no longer convey the meaning I had intended. (Personal email from Mark Feinberg, MD, PhD, to Charles Nicoll, PhD."
> 
> This is from the website that you have suggested


But where is all this leading? What exactly are you trying to prove?
This is not about the good that scientists have done through their work with medicine, with or without animals, it is about the feelings of many on this one particular Doctor, oh I beg your parden! surgeon!

Looks like you have been on Petforums a fair time, Everyone knows that Testmag is always putting posts of the same nature as this one up, Seldom do they get so many replies. Not yourself admittidly but another member tore into Testmag accusing him of being an Animal rights Activist and airing there disgust at 'anyone' for 'rejoicing' over the death of another human being (this man)!

What are those who have a dislike of this person supposed to do? Sit back, say nothing, pass on false condolenses, I think not! 
I have said to you time and time again EVERYONE is entitled to the say on there thoughts on THIS PERSON There is no reason for the likes of you condoning them for doing so! None what so ever!
I still take offence at being called a hypocrite!
And would suggest that we put this to bed now!
End of!


----------



## Cleo38

So I have come up with evidence regarding his work, disputed mis quotes regarding animal testing, etc when I initally said that I was more concerned about the glee expressed at a doctors death (once again this was someone with a respctable profession that HELPED MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO CHILDRENS LIVES) So what am I trying to prove???? That there is a load of rubbish put out by the AR movement perhaps???

If nobody ever bothered responding to the OPs threads previously maybe he's aglad that he's posted something that has cause so much debate which can only be a good thing surely 

You can express your (misguided) opinion if you want just as I mine with regard to people accepting all the benefits of the medical research whilst getting angry & abusing doctors/scientists for carrying out their research - it doesn't make any sense at all


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> So I have come up with evidence regarding his work, disputed mis quotes regarding animal testing, etc when I initally said that I was more concerned about the glee expressed at a doctors death (once again this was someone with a respctable profession that HELPED MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO CHILDRENS LIVES) So what am I trying to prove???? That there is a load of rubbish put out by the AR movement perhaps???
> 
> If nobody ever bothered responding to the OPs threads previously maybe he's aglad that he's posted something that has cause so much debate which can only be a good thing surely
> 
> You can express your (misguided) opinion if you want just as I mine with regard to people accepting all the benefits of the medical research whilst getting angry & abusing doctors/scientists for carrying out their research - it doesn't make any sense at all


No you havn't come up with any evidence at all! All you have come up with is a load of papers that are there for the perusal of all. the crux of the matter here is the EXTREME acts of cruelty that he went to, and that is the reason there is so much hatred against him!

You supply me with the evidence as to WHY he had to perform these horrific acts on these primates without the use of anesthetic and then I'll take you seriously! Just one reason! infact i'll tell you the reason he didn't that may make it easier! He did NOT use anesthetic because he wanted the animals AWAKE so that he could watch the eye movements! with anesthetic he would not have been able to do that! BUT!! there was no need to do that, and that is what this is all about!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> You can express your (misguided) opinion if you want just as I mine with regard to people accepting all the benefits of the medical research whilst getting angry & abusing doctors/scientists for carrying out their research - it doesn't make any sense at all


Firstly we are hypocrites, then we are misguided, perhaps you should read the forum rules relating to insulting other members!

I have my opinion, has others have theirs, as YOU can have yours! BUT DO NOT label me or others for ours! Then I shall treat yours with equal respect!
I have not said one single word that has been 'personally' against you!


----------



## Waterlily

DoubleTrouble said:


> Firstly we are hypocrites, then we are misguided, perhaps you should read the forum rules relating to insulting other members!
> 
> I have my opinion, has others have theirs, as YOU can have yours! BUT DO NOT label me or others for ours! Then I shall treat yours with equal respect!
> I have not said one single word that has been 'personally' against you!


Well said mate :thumbup: I dont give a toss if he died but I do give a toss about the torture he inflicted  My right to say and feel as I please :001_cool:


----------



## noushka05

well thank you at least for checking out the quotes whether a couple were taken out of context or not im still of the same opinion as some others on this thread that primate research is wrong and immoral...... and ive just checked out quite a few websites on various species of primate and scientific research is taking its toll on wild populations(along with other factors) leaving whole species vulnerable to extinction in the wild.......now that cant be right can it!

interesting info...............

Home Page Latest News FAQsMedia CoverageGet InvolvedScientists' quotesScience AdvisorsContact UsLinks

ANIMAL TESTING - MPs, GPs and scientists demand evaluation
Animal tests were made a legal requirement following the Thalidomide tragedy forty years ago, in the hope of preventing another such disaster. But have they lived up to their promise? Recently withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx was safe and even beneficial to animal's hearts but caused as many as 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in people - the biggest drug catastrophe in history.[1] Shockingly, adverse reactions to prescription medicines (all tested for safety on animals) are now the fourth leading cause of death in the western world: killing over 10,000 people a year in the UK and costing the NHS £466 million.[2] New human-based safety tests before and during clinical trials (such as microdosing) could prevent many of these deaths.

Compelling reasons to assess the efficacy of animal tests include:

Several published studies assessing the prediction of drug side effects by animals have found them to be very poor predictors; correct only 5-25% of the time.[3] 
92% of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies.[4] 
Sophisticated new methods of assessing drug safety include human tissues, DNA chips, virtual metabolism simulators and microdosing with PET and AMS scanners.[5] 
A new study of animal and in vitro methods of predicting teratogenicity (potential to cause birth defects) spanning 40 years has found animal tests to be ineffective.[6] 
Scores of treatments for stroke have tested safe and effective in animals in recent years but not a single one has emerged as safe and effective for patients.[7] 
82% of doctors in an independent survey in 2004 were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and 83% would support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation.[8] 
The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.[9] 
A 2004 paper in the British Medical Journal concluded that the contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation.[10] 
The recent Health Committee inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry concluded that the regulatory standards for new drug approval require urgent review.[11]
This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.[12]
State-of-the-art human-based tests could have prevented the Vioxx tragedy. The public deserves to be protected from another 'Vioxx' in future. Clearly, an assessment needs to be made of the relative performance of the various methods of safety testing available. Substantial evidence exists that animal tests are inadequate for the task but - incredibly - this has never been systematically investigated. The only responsible course of action is to evaluate animal testing scientifically, in an independent and transparent manner.

Says Science Director of Europeans for Medical Progress, Dr Jarrod Bailey, "The urgency of this evaluation cannot be overstated: people's lives are at stake. The Government must act now to facilitate the conduct of this evaluation and undertake to act upon the results with due speed when the implications have become apparent."

Says Mike Hancock, CBE, MP, "It is astonishing that animal testing has never been scientifically evaluated and the process is long overdue. We cannot have confidence in animal testing until a genuine assessment is conducted and the results made public."

Supporting our call are: The Rt Hon Tony Benn, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP, Mike Hancock, CBE, MP, Norman Baker MP, Michael Meacher MP, Ann Widdecombe MP

References and notes:

[1] British Medical Journal 2004;329:1253
Dr David Graham, associate director of the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, said an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans had heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal. The number, he said, far exceeds earlier disasters such as the 100 children killed in the United States by an elixir of sulfanilamide in the 1930s and the 5,000 to 10,000 children born in the 1960s with birth defects related to thalidomide. Both events led to sweeping regulatory changes.

[2] British Medical Journal 2004;329:15-19 Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital.
Measures are urgently needed to reduce the burden on the NHS.

[3] eg. Clin Pharmacol 1962;3:665-72
Zbinden, G (1991) Predictive value of animal studies in toxicology. Regul. Tox. Pharm. 14: 167-177
CMR Workshop  Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man Quay 1990 p 49-56 and p57-67
Spriet-Pourra, C and Auriche, M (Eds) 1994 SCRIP Reports PJB, New York 
Garratini, S (1985) Toxic effects of chemicals: difficulties in extrapolating data from animals to man. Annu. Rev. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 16: 1-29
Zbinden, G (1993) Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 17: 85-94
Calabrese (1984) Suitability of animal models for predictive toxicology: Drug Metab Rev 15: 505-523
Oser, BL (1981) J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 8: 521-642
Calabrese, EJ (1987) Principles of Animal Extrapolation. Wiley, New York
Olson, H., Betton, G., Stritar, J., and Robinson, D. (1998). The predictivity of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans from animal data-An interim assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 102-103, 535-538
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2000;32:56-67
Drug Metabolism and Drug Interactions 2000;16:143-155

Dr Ralph Heywood, former director of Huntingdon Research Centre, said,  the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5 and 25%.

[4] Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner, in The Scientist 6.8.04 More compounds failing Phase I

[5] Microdose studies (Phase 0 clinical trials) were endorsed by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in January 2003, and were shown to be highly effective at predicting human metabolic profiles in a trial culminating in March 2005. See www.microdosing.co.uk.

A ten-year international study proved that human cell culture tests are more accurate and yield more useful information about toxic mechanisms than traditional animal tests. Some companies (eg.www.asterand.com) focus on safety and efficacy assessments in human tissues. Others (eg. Human tissue services- Biopta) specialise in human pharmacological assessments during clinical trials, which could identify the cardiovascular hazards of a drug like Vioxx, for example, before it was marketed. Many companies specialise in virtual screening of drugs for potentially toxic effects. A wide range of predictive software is available, including complete clinical trial simulations.


----------



## Cleo38

You asked me about the anesthetic arguement - I gave replies. Can you demonstrate (as I asked previously) which doctor had already researched this condition & had provided the surgical techniques used to correct the problem & had been experimenting with botox? If this mans work was useless & surgical techniques had already been developed that were as effective where is this listed?
Topical anesthetic were used in most cases of his research (as I mentioned GAs were not suitable), I am not disputing that in SOME cases no anesthetics were used but would be grateful if you could provide examples of this as I couldn't find any.
As for the papers being available to all - yes... they are that is the WHOLE POINT!!!!!! So why waste time reading the rubbish on the anti viv websites which are full of misquotes & misinformation .... why not just read about the experiments themselves :thumbup:


----------



## Waterlily

Cleo38 said:


> You asked me about the anesthetic arguement - I gave replies. Can you demonstrate (as I asked previously) which doctor had already researched this condition & had provided the surgical techniques used to correct the problem & had been experimenting with botox? If this mans work was useless & surgical techniques had already been developed that were as effective where is this listed?
> Topical anesthetic were used in most cases of his research (as I mentioned GAs were not suitable), I am not disputing that in SOME cases no anesthetics were used but would be grateful if you could provide examples of this as I couldn't find any.
> As for the papers being available to all - yes... they are that is the WHOLE POINT!!!!!! So why waste time reading the rubbish on the anti viv websites which are full of misquotes & misinformation .... why not just read about the experiments themselves :thumbup:


Give it a rest mate  so what if peeps dont feel the same as you


----------



## Starlite

completely against vivisection.

The fact that we use other animals lives to further our own saddens me, we dont have the right 

or better yet, an animal dying because of our vanity (shampoos etc) :nono:

good riddance to bad rubbish imo


----------



## noushka05

DoubleTrouble said:


> Firstly we are hypocrites, then we are misguided, perhaps you should read the forum rules relating to insulting other members!
> 
> I have my opinion, has others have theirs, as YOU can have yours! BUT DO NOT label me or others for ours! Then I shall treat yours with equal respect!
> I have not said one single word that has been 'personally' against you!





Waterlily said:


> Well said mate :thumbup: I dont give a toss if he died but I do give a toss about the torture he inflicted  My right to say and feel as I please :001_cool:


couldnt agree more! at the end of the day everyone has a right to their own opinion


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> You asked me about the anesthetic arguement - I gave replies. Can you demonstrate (as I asked previously) which doctor had already researched this condition & had provided the surgical techniques used to correct the problem & had been experimenting with botox? If this mans work was useless & surgical techniques had already been developed that were as effective where is this listed?
> Topical anesthetic were used in most cases of his research (as I mentioned GAs were not suitable), I am not disputing that in SOME cases no anesthetics were used but would be grateful if you could provide examples of this as I couldn't find any.
> As for the papers being available to all - yes... they are that is the WHOLE POINT!!!!!! So why waste time reading the rubbish on the anti viv websites which are full of misquotes & misinformation .... why not just read about the experiments themselves :thumbup:


I really give up with you!

I am NOT bothered who said, who wrote, where it's wrote, when it was wrote and in what colour ink it was wrote!
My arguement with YOU, is that YOU feel YOU can insult other members because the are NOT mouning the death of this man, and are in some cases rejoicing! FACT _ CHECK BACK. 
I have given my reason (not that I ever needed to give any reason) Because HE did NOT use anesthetic and consequently caused unessesary suffering! FACT! - EVIDENCE IS THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT. 
You have continuned to come back with endless excuses as to why his work was so great when in fact there was nothing PIONEERING at all about his work! If thats the way you want to see it then thats fine by me! (maybe had he have lived he would have moved onto tunneled vision) 
You go and celebrate his life to your little hearts desire! Light a few candles for him, say a couple of prayers! because GOD he is going need em when he arrives where he is going!

Now have I made myself clear where I am with this one! 
Thats it guys!! I'm moving on!

Regards
DT


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> I really give up with you!
> 
> I am NOT bothered who said, who wrote, where it's wrote, when it was wrote and in what colour ink it was wrote!
> My arguement with YOU, is that YOU feel YOU can insult other members because the are NOT mouning the death of this man, and are in some cases rejoicing! FACT _ CHECK BACK.
> I have given my reason (not that I ever needed to give any reason) Because HE did NOT use anesthetic and consequently caused unessesary suffering! FACT! - EVIDENCE IS THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT.
> You have continuned to come back with endless excuses as to why his work was so great when in fact there was nothing PIONEERING at all about his work! If thats the way you want to see it then thats fine by me! (maybe had he have lived he would have moved onto tunneled vision)
> You go and celebrate his life to your little hearts desire! Light a few candles for him, say a couple of prayers! because GOD he is going need em when he arrives where he is going!
> 
> Now have I made myself clear where I am with this one!
> Thats it guys!! I'm moving on!
> 
> Regards
> DT


So what you're saying is that you're ignoring facts & changing the arguement

You are stating facts (capital letters even but not producing any evidence for this claim  even when asked why you claim his work isn't pioneering there is still nothing to suggest why you claim this. You say you don't need to give reasons? Then why bother debating issues? isn't it all about providing reasons/evidence? pretty rubbish arguement otherwise 

It's not about celebrating his life at all, it's about ....now here we go YET again... I don't know how many times I need to say it .... not announcing with glee that a doctor has died!!!!

If people are carrying out unnecessay experiements then that is wrong but to dismiss all is unscientific. If you want to have a debate about animal testing (which I didn't in the beginning) then you need to be aware of ALL the facts not the ones you choose from the anti viv websites.

I am bothered about who said what, who wrote it, etc that's why after having been involved with the AR movement for years I came to realise what a load of inaccurate information was being banded around


----------



## noushka05

i cant help the way i feel about this individual and i have the right to express that on an open forum, if you feel differently than thats your perogative.


----------



## Cleo38

noushka05 said:


> i cant help the way i feel about this individual and i have the right to express that on an open forum, if you feel differently than thats your perogative.


I'm not arguing that people have to feel exactly as I do at all. I am not even arguing that it is wrong to be against animal experimentation (although I do stand by what I said about hypocracy). 
I do feel it's wrong to use information that is not correct when trying to state facts. 
I also feel it's wrong (as in Dr Rosenbaums case) to hound a man who is using his profession to help people.
I feel it is wrong to try & hold back scientists whose work could be pioneering & help thousands maybe millions of people
I feel it is wrong to use bullying & harrassment against those involved in research 
I feel it is sickening that these bully boy tactics used by extremists (as mentioned in the opening article) could be costing people their lives if it continues


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> I'm not arguing that people have to feel exactly as I do at all. I am not even arguing that it is wrong to be against animal experimentation (although I do stand by what I said about hypocracy).
> I do feel it's wrong to use information that is not correct when trying to state facts.
> I also feel it's wrong (as in Dr Rosenbaums case) to hound a man who is using his profession to help people.
> I feel it is wrong to try & hold back scientists whose work could be pioneering & help thousands maybe millions of people
> I feel it is wrong to use bullying & harrassment against those involved in research
> I feel it is sickening that these bully boy tactics used by extremists (as mentioned in the opening article) could be costing people their lives if it continues


thats okay then youre entitled to your own opinions


----------



## Waterlily

this still going on  



and on and on and on pmsl


----------



## Guest

Waterlily said:


> this still going on
> 
> and on and on and on pmsl


Dunno mate! hadn't noticed fell asleep! must have been boredom


----------



## Colette

How hard is this for people to understand.

This man was not a violent psychopath or a criminal. He was doing a legal job like we all do, and whether his work was "justified" or "useful" or whatever in your opinion or mine - he obviously believed in what he was doing. There is NO evidence whatsoever that he deliberately "tortured" monkeys for fun.

None of us actually knew the guy. I certainly am not mourning his death because I didn't know him. Whatever people feel is their own business. However, I do find it sad, and pretty sick for people to actively celebrate a person's death. A sadistic nutter like Hitler or Jack the Ripper yes, fair enough, but this was just a normal guy doing what he believed was right. Wishing death on someone like this.... leaves me cold.

I do agree it is hypocritical for any person to wish death and hell upon other people for harming or killing animals, when their own actiond cause suffering and death. 

For me, this thread goes beyond the usual anti-viv arguments - obviously it is a very controversial topic and will always divide us - but still, wishing death and celebrating it shows a total lack of compassion and empathy in my opinion.


----------



## Guest

Colette said:


> How hard is this for people to understand.
> 
> I do find it sad, and pretty sick for people to actively celebrate a person's death. A sadistic nutter like Hitler or Jack the Ripper yes, fair enough, but this was just a normal guy doing what he believed was right. Wishing death on someone like this.... leaves me cold.
> 
> (


Jack the Ripper were a saint next to this guy! at least he used ether to knock his victems out prior to multerlating em!
DT


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Dunno mate! hadn't noticed fell asleep! must have been boredom


Despite saying you're going several time now ... you just can't keep away can you?? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Despite saying you're going several time now ... you just can't keep away can you?? :lol::lol::lol:


Some peeps just seem to bring out the worst in me:thumbup:


----------



## Cleo38

Colette said:


> How hard is this for people to understand.
> 
> This man was not a violent psychopath or a criminal. He was doing a legal job like we all do, and whether his work was "justified" or "useful" or whatever in your opinion or mine - he obviously believed in what he was doing. There is NO evidence whatsoever that he deliberately "tortured" monkeys for fun.
> 
> None of us actually knew the guy. I certainly am not mourning his death because I didn't know him. Whatever people feel is their own business. However, I do find it sad, and pretty sick for people to actively celebrate a person's death. A sadistic nutter like Hitler or Jack the Ripper yes, fair enough, but this was just a normal guy doing what he believed was right. Wishing death on someone like this.... leaves me cold.
> 
> I do agree it is hypocritical for any person to wish death and hell upon other people for harming or killing animals, when their own actiond cause suffering and death.
> 
> For me, this thread goes beyond the usual anti-viv arguments - obviously it is a very controversial topic and will always divide us - but still, wishing death and celebrating it shows a total lack of compassion and empathy in my opinion.


At last ... someone who shows a bit of humanity :thumbup:

I was quite looking forward to new arguements regarding anti vivisection, I would be really interested if there was actually something factual rather than the usual hysteria & mis quotes but unfortunately :frown2:

I wish animals experimentation wasn't necessary, I hate to think of animals in distress but then I also hate the thought of losing a loved one to an incurable disease so realise that (for now) animal experimentation is ncecesary


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> At last ... someone who shows a bit of humanity :thumbup:
> 
> I was quite looking forward to new arguements regarding anti vivisection, I would be really interested if there was actually something factual rather than the usual hysteria & mis quotes but unfortunately :frown2:
> 
> I wish animals experimentation wasn't necessary, I hate to think of animals in distress but then I also hate the thought of losing a loved one to an incurable disease so realise that (for now) animal experimentation is ncecesary


Should be a great wake guys! Line em up barman! A pint and two straws


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Should be a great wake guys! Line em up barman! A pint and two straws


Always is when you're right!!!! :thumbup:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> Always is when you're right!!!! :thumbup:


wouldn't bet on it! by the response on this thread alone I'd lay odds you'd lose:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Guinevere13

Cleo38 said:


> I wish animals experimentation wasn't necessary, I hate to think of animals in distress but then I also hate the thought of losing a loved one to an incurable disease so realise that (for now) animal experimentation is ncecesary


Unfortunately testing drugs on animals doesn't work. My dad was actually told by the doctor he trusted, that he was going to be a guinea pig for a new heart drug. One week later he was dead. So, my opinion on vivisection and animal testing comes from personal tragedy not misquoted papers. 
I *want* a choice on whether my medicines are tested on animals or not, I *want* a choice as to whether my medicines are suitable for vegetarians, I *want* that choice but I am *not* given it. No-one I have asked can give me a reason but it is usually down to money - as everything always is.

My choice is not to have any animal suffer for me, I am just ashamed that they do. It does not make me a hypocrite, it just means that my choice is very limited or has been taken from me.


----------



## noushka05

Guinevere13 said:


> Unfortunately testing drugs on animals doesn't work. My dad was actually told by the doctor he trusted, that he was going to be a guinea pig for a new heart drug. One week later he was dead. So, my opinion on vivisection and animal testing comes from personal tragedy not misquoted papers.
> I *want* a choice on whether my medicines are tested on animals or not, I *want* a choice as to whether my medicines are suitable for vegetarians, I *want* that choice but I am *not* given it. No-one I have asked can give me a reason but it is usually down to money - as everything always is.
> 
> My choice is not to have any animal suffer for me, I am just ashamed that they do. It does not make me a hypocrite, it just means that my choice is very limited or has been taken from me.


excellent post!.


----------



## Cleo38

Guinevere13 said:


> Unfortunately testing drugs on animals doesn't work. My dad was actually told by the doctor he trusted, that he was going to be a guinea pig for a new heart drug. One week later he was dead. So, my opinion on vivisection and animal testing comes from personal tragedy not misquoted papers.
> I *want* a choice on whether my medicines are tested on animals or not, I *want* a choice as to whether my medicines are suitable for vegetarians, I *want* that choice but I am *not* given it. No-one I have asked can give me a reason but it is usually down to money - as everything always is.
> 
> My choice is not to have any animal suffer for me, I am just ashamed that they do. It does not make me a hypocrite, it just means that my choice is very limited or has been taken from me.


I am so sorry for what happened to your dad, that is terrible & can understand why you feel the way you do.
However animal testing DOES work in most cases & has provided us with drugs to cure & manage diseases, surgical procedures to save & improve lives as well as understanding anatomy giving us choices to live our lives to the best we can.

The lastest break through regarding control of HIV was announced this week, made possible through animal research Microbicide gel cuts HIV infection rates…thank the monkeys! « Speaking of Research
BBC News - Scientists say vaginal gel cuts HIV-infections by half

Further testing is still required but this could save millions of lives.

I'm sorry but it is unscientific to use a blanket statement that animal testing doesn't work


----------



## turkeylad

&#304; have absolutely no love loss for this disgusting human being and completely defend all actions taken against him and his family whilst he was alive but he is dead now let his family grieve in peace.


----------



## Cleo38

There was a post on here a week or so ago regarding how amazing a programme 'The Bionic Vet' was .... how do you think his techniques were developed???

Scroll to the bottom of the page ......

News « Speaking of Research


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I
> Further testing is still required but this could save millions of lives.
> 
> I'm sorry but it is unscientific to use a blanket statement that animal testing doesn't work


You are doing it again! You are telling people what they can and can't say!
And what qualifies you to make such statements yourself!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> You are doing it again! You are telling people what they can and can't say!
> And what qualifies you to make such statements yourself!


I am not telling people what they can & can't say at all .... how do your read that?

What they are saying though IS unscientific, to use a blanket statement that ALL animal testing fdoesn't work is incorrect as has been proved time & time again.

Did you not read about the HIV gel that has the potential to save lives? Do you not think that it is FANTASTIC news?

Why are you so angry that I am able to provide example of where animal testing works? If any new drug is proved successful & will SAVE or IMPROVE people lives I am happy as it means that families of those affected by illness/impairmnents/disabilities, etc can have their lives saved or improved - does this not bother you? :


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> There was a post on here a week or so ago regarding how amazing a programme 'The Bionic Vet' was .... how do you think his techniques were developed???
> 
> Scroll to the bottom of the page ......
> 
> News « Speaking of Research


Missed it! but am I right in assuming that this was a vet, researching procedures to be used on ANIMALS! because if it was then there is a VAST difference!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Missed it! but am I right in assuming that this was a vet, researching procedures to be used on ANIMALS! because if it was then there is a VAST difference!


No, you are wrong. it was techniques devveloped to use on humans but was adapted for animals.... this is why you should read more then you will understand the whole picture rather than just a little bit


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> No, you are wrong. it was techniques devveloped to use on humans but was adapted for animals.... this is why you should read more then you will understand the whole picture rather than just a little bit


But there is NO need for me to read these links! This thread is not about all scientific work, It is about one specific man! this man, and the hatred HE created with the experiments he carried out! It was the depth of cruetly that caused the uproar here! had this man had at least tried to minimise the pain and suffering the uproar against him would have been nowhere near the level it was!

There will always be exceptions, granted! But this man went beyond the boundries of what one would expect from a human being!

You are wasting your time therefore posting these links, at least you are where I am concerned! My mind is made up and it would take a wiser person then you to change it!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> But there is NO need for me to read these links! This thread is not about all scientific work, It is about one specific man! this man, and the hatred HE created with the experiments he carried out! It was the depth of cruetly that caused the uproar here! had this man had at least tried to minimise the pain and suffering the uproar against him would have been nowhere near the level it was!
> 
> There will always be exceptions, granted! But this man went beyond the boundries of what one would expect from a human being!
> 
> You are wasting your time therefore posting these links, at least you are where I am concerned! My mind is made up and it would take a wiser person then you to change it!


:lol::lol: Your arguements change with the wind!!! I tried to start at the beginning of the thread by keeping to the fact that I was angry that a joy at the death of a doctor was expressed but kept having the tired old anti vivv arguements thrown up so when i changed my direction in accordance with everyone else I'm now being told differently again 

You have referred sveral times to the cruelty he displayed, now you are saying that there will be exceptions (glad you can see why I said the blanket statements regarding animal testing were incorrect) but you are also saying he went beyond the boundries.... can you explain this?

I have asked time & time again on this thread for reason of why his work was not necessary, what techniques that were eas effective as his were in place, why he was revered in many mendical journal if his work was unnecessary & why he is considered to have carried out cruel experiments but NO ONE has come up with any facts or examples.

If I am wasting my time posting these links then it shows how closed your mind is to alternative view points. I took the time earlier in the thread to read those posted by Shamen so i was able to comment further.

You stated earlier that this thread was boring & how you'd had enough but you can't leave it despite having no factual information to add - I really don't know why you are so upset at medical progress :confused1:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> :lol::lol: Your arguements change with the wind!!! I tried to start at the beginning of the thread by keeping to the fact that I was angry that a joy at the death of a doctor was expressed but kept having the tired old anti vivv arguements thrown up so when i changed my direction in accordance with everyone else I'm now being told differently again
> 
> You have referred sveral times to the cruelty he displayed, now you are saying that there will be exceptions (glad you can see why I said the blanket statements regarding animal testing were incorrect) but you are also saying he went beyond the boundries.... can you explain this?
> I have asked time & time again on this thread for reason of why his work was not necessary, what techniques that wrre eas effective as his were in place, why he was revered in many mendical journal if his work was unnecessary & why he is considered to have carried out cruel experiments but NO ONE has come up with any facts or examples.
> If i am wasting my time posting these links then it shows how closed your mind is to alternative view points.
> You stated earlier that this thread was boring & how you'd had enough but you can't leave it despite having no factual information to add - I really don't know why you are so upset at medical progress :confused1:


You are wrong again! My initial post made on this thread I said something like anyone who causes unessessary pain and suffering to a defenceless animal needs to burn in hell! HE CAUSED PAIN AND SUFFERING What part of that do you not understand?

Whether these experiments were necessary That AIN'T the point!
It was the suffering he caused that caused the uproar!


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> You are wrong again! My initial post made on this thread I said something like anyone who causes unessessary pain and suffering to a defenceless animal needs to burn in hell! HE CAUSED PAIN AND SUFFERING What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Whether these experiments were necessary That AIN'T the point!
> It was the suffering he caused that caused the uproar!


Of course the point was whether the experiements were necessary or not, i've just red through your posts & that seemed to be the point of your arguement .... for a while!

As I said (at the ebginning of the thread) lots of people cause pain & suffering to animals .... I used the example of the meat industry but apparently this was wrong because it then turned to unnecesaary experiements  which is now wrong

I can't believe I have to ask yet again of why you insist on highlighting levels of cruelty without providing examples.

I find it very odd to be against experimentation & research without knowing why you are against them, without reading information regarding procedures & understanding the benefits that this can provide.

You have constantly made reference to experimentation in your posts& used examples that are incorrect. When I posted examples of asuccess stories you weren't interested - do you not value peoples lives at all?

Do you not think that advances regarding preventing HIV infection are something to celebrate? I do because I value human life; my own & my families, even people I don't know.


----------



## Waterlily

Heres a link for ya 

YouTube - Beatles - Let It Be


----------



## Cleo38

Waterlily said:


> Heres a link for ya
> 
> YouTube - Beatles - Let It Be


:thumbup::lol::lol:


----------



## Waterlily

Cleo38 said:


> :thumbup::lol::lol:


great song aye  thought this thread may need a bit of wisdom :lol:


----------



## noushka05

I think its obvious that DT joined this thread because she thought that those on here who werent, lets say sorry this man had died, were jumped on for expressing that!

on the subject of vivisection tho i prefer like someone else has said ...to believe independant scientists who say there are humane alternatives to animal experimentation i am passionate about animals and really concerned about the state of primate species in the wild so if i choose to believe certain scientists over you Cleo or other pro vivisectionists then thats my choice, this is a very interesting read...

http://www.apgaw.org/userimages/Minutes Mar 06.pdf


----------



## noushka05

Waterlily said:


> Heres a link for ya
> 
> YouTube - Beatles - Let It Be


lmao oops i didnt see this:lol:


----------



## Guest

Has there been a new rule passed on PF whereby we have to run it by CLEO before we can voice our opinions!

I also happen to think that the Lockerbie Bomber should be dead! And shall be saying the same when he passes on! Are we going to have the same arguement again then!

Now Hammer and Chisel!
My views
I could not give a flying hoot that this guy has passed on! As neither could 
show compassion for any other person who has caused unecessisary suffering or just be downright cruel! I neither had to account to YOU or anyone else my reasons for that!

You on the other hand!
Have chosen to to take it upon yourself to preach to us and air you disgust that we can show no compassion over his death! What right have to to try and alter our views! That is my book adds up to dictatorship!

Once more!
Your are welcome your views!
I am welcome mine!


----------



## billyboysmammy

I havent read the whole thread, 

Suffice to say he was pure evil where is research animals lives were concerned!

I am not objected to animal testing for REAL medical research. I would prefer alternatives were used, but this is not always possible. I dispise repeated testing of every single medication just because its been rebranded etc, I dispise those who feel it necessary to test on animals for a condition which has been successfully treated or cured for some time. I dispise testing for cleaning products or cosmetics full stop, there is no excuse!

I do understand the need for certain testing, and the need for certain research, and i realise that wont make me popular on here.

I dont condone ANY extreemist reactions, it achieves nothing. Car bombing, hounding an individual in their home etc achieves nothing. Demonstrate YES, but do it at the place these cruel experiments are being committed, not at their home! Their kids cant help who their dad/mum is!

As for celebrating his death? Its not quite a celebration imo. More of a sigh of relief on behalf all the countless animals he needlessly tortured.


----------



## Waterlily

billyboysmammy said:


> As for celebrating his death? Its not quite a celebration imo. More of a sigh of relief on behalf all the countless animals he needlessly tortured.


now that's what I meant to say but couldn't intellectualise it :thumbup:


----------



## Guest

billyboysmammy said:


> I havent read the whole thread,
> 
> Suffice to say he was pure evil where is research animals lives were concerned!
> 
> I am not objected to animal testing for REAL medical research. I would prefer alternatives were used, but this is not always possible. I dispise repeated testing of every single medication just because its been rebranded etc, I dispise those who feel it necessary to test on animals for a condition which has been successfully treated or cured for some time. I dispise testing for cleaning products or cosmetics full stop, there is no excuse!
> 
> I do understand the need for certain testing, and the need for certain research, and i realise that wont make me popular on here.
> 
> I dont condone ANY extreemist reactions, it achieves nothing. Car bombing, hounding an individual in their home etc achieves nothing. Demonstrate YES, but do it at the place these cruel experiments are being committed, not at their home! Their kids cant help who their dad/mum is!
> 
> As for celebrating his death? Its not quite a celebration imo. More of a sigh of relief on behalf all the countless animals he needlessly tortured.


Great post BBM! just to say with reference to you saying you understand the need for testing, and certain research! There is NO need whatsoever that by saying that you will be unpopular! There will always be the exception!

As for the last paragraph!
That is all we are trying to say!

As for the dog with the bone has it finished it yet?

DT


----------



## Cleo38

DoubleTrouble said:


> Has there been a new rule passed on PF whereby we have to run it by CLEO before we can voice our opinions!
> 
> I also happen to think that the Lockerbie Bomber should be dead! And shall be saying the same when he passes on! Are we going to have the same arguement again then!
> 
> Now Hammer and Chisel!
> My views
> I could not give a flying hoot that this guy has passed on! As neither could
> show compassion for any other person who has caused unecessisary suffering or just be downright cruel! I neither had to account to YOU or anyone else my reasons for that!
> 
> You on the other hand!
> Have chosen to to take it upon yourself to preach to us and air you disgust that we can show no compassion over his death! What right have to to try and alter our views! That is my book adds up to dictatorship!
> 
> Once more!
> Your are welcome your views!
> I am welcome mine!


I have not taken to preach, if you read muy posts ... which obviously you don't 

I take it your are still irgnoring my request for an explanation of why these were unnecessary or cruel experiment or that inflicting pain & suffering on animals does not apply to the meat industry but only to research

As for comparing a doctor (a man who improved childrens lives) to Al Megrahi (a man who murdered over 250 people) ...... not really any comparison!!!

Why is it that you are expressing an opinion but I am preaching? I have posted facts & stories of medical successes yet still you choose to ignore these ..... have you no interest in improving people lives?


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I have not taken to preach, if you read muy posts ... which obviously you don't
> 
> I take it your are still irgnoring my request for an explanation of why these were unnecessary or cruel experiment or that inflicting pain & suffering on animals does not apply to the meat industry but only to research
> 
> As for comparing a doctor (a man who improved childrens lives) to Al Megrahi (a man who murdered over 250 people) ...... not really any comparison!!!
> 
> Why is it that you are expressing an opinion but I am preaching? I have posted facts & stories of medical successes yet still you choose to ignore these ..... have you no interest in improving people lives?


You have continuously asked me to explain my views on the meat industry! I have continued to ignore those requests because!! stange as it may sound I DO NOT owe you an explaination for anything!! The meat industry has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread and the comments made by others. You are the one who has gone off track here! NOT the majority!

Re! Al Megrahi! Are you not contridicting yourself her! You claim that is is beyond belief that people are celebrating the death of Arthur Rosenbaum. OR did I read OTHER HUMAN BEING (that may not have been you) AM is another human being!

Last paragraph, Several of us indicted that we could not give a hoot that ALR had passed on! Yep we gave our opinions! no problem there! The problem was you and the fact that you Condemed us for our opinions! As I have said many many times - you really do not have to continue copying and pasting biased bumf as to why you hero worship this guy! it really don't matter! There are those of us who don't and hell will freeze over before many of us change our minds!

DT


----------



## Waterlily

DoubleTrouble said:


> Last paragraph, Several of us indicted that we could not give a hoot that ALR had passed on! Yep we gave our opinions! no problem there! The problem was you and the fact that you Condemed us for our opinions! As I have said many many times - you really do not have to continue copying and pasting biased bumf as to why you hero worship this guy! it really don't matter! There are those of us who don't and hell will freeze over before many of us change our minds!
> 
> DT


exactly and I'm jumping off this :thumbup:



its making me dizzy :scared:


----------



## tashi

Hes dead, hes gone and now so is this thread


----------

