- Multinationals -

Animal Research kills & injures people .... for $$$$$

Posted by: j.citizen ( EYE, Oz ) on December 10, 1998 at 19:21:29:

In Reply to: way i think that animal testing is good........ posted by hannah on April 06, 1998 at 10:14:04:

For information explaining why animal research does not work, has not led to medical progress in the past, and won't in the future - info. from doctors, scientists and former animal researchers that will knock your socks off go to CAFMR www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr (medical research section) and Guardians: www.werple.net.au/~antiviv

: I belive that animal testing is good for many reasons.

I once believed this too as it was the impression i got from the media, university and even animal rights groups. But behind all of these is money! Money supplied by the Pharmaceutical industry through advertising revenue and "donations" to educational foundations to censor what information is made available to the public.

: 1: We have so many products that have been tested on animals could we get a long with out them?

yes, most certainly. Animal tests only tell us how a product reacted on that particular animal at that particular time under those particular conditions, nothing more.

According to a 1994 article in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" there are 180,000 medically-induced deaths each year in the USA alone. That is 180,000 people *killed* by the "side-effects" of pharmaceutical drugs and surgical complications. The real figure is probably much higher as most drug-damAges are not acknowledged or reported. We all know about the dangerous chemicals in our environment - most of which the true effects on people are unknown. These products were all marketed after being found safe on other species. Consider the following statement from a person who did animal research for 27 years and finally concluded it was worthless.

“Every species, all the varieties of animals and even individuals of the same species are different from each other. No amount of experimentation on one species can be extrapolated to any other, including humans. To suppose that such experimentation could be legitimate for humans is the main reason for the failures and sometimes for the catastrophes which are inflicted upon us by modern medicine, especially in the area of drugs....” Italy’s Prof. Pitero Croce from his book “Vivisection or Science --A Choice to Make” (1991: p 14).

It is a myth that we "need more drugs" and that all the drugs we now have are useful. That is a belief created by the drug industry so as to create fertile soil for their future profits. In the early 1980s the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) compiled a list of only two dozen pharmaceutical drugs considered "indispensable" - out of the several hundred thousand that have been marketed.

For the references to the above info. see the article "why do pharmaceutical drugs injure & Kill? Are WE the real guinea-pigs?" on the following web-sites:

www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr (via the medical research section)
www.teknet.net.au/~eye/ (in the "blatant propaganda" section).

: 2: There has many lives saved from animal testing. The information that we have gained from animal testing is so great.

That is something i once belived when i had only read information coming from Drug Lobby sources ie. the media, school, university, and many "animal rights" groups run by the Drug Lobby interests. All these are linked to the Pharmaceutical industry and rarely put out information unfavourable to drug lobby profits.

After 5 years at university completing a biology degree I am of the opinion that animal research has not saved a single human life but has been responsible for the deaths and injuries to millions of people through drugs and medical procedures found "safe" on animals. This may seem truly bizzarre but it is the opinion of thousands of doctors, scientists and former-animal researchers too. You will see this if you go to the web-sites listed at the top of the page. Their views are not publicised widely in the media as the media relies on advertising revenue form the pharmaceutical-chemical industry which in turn rely on animal tests to give their products the illusion of safety.

: 3: If we would not test on animals there would be a overpopulation of animals. You will say that we can hunt them but if that happened wouldn't we have more deaths from shooting.

In nature you don’t need to hunt animals down unless perhaps their habitat has been upset by people. Their is a thing called nature’s balance! Nevertheless, the animals used in labs are not obtained from overpopulated areas anyway! The animals are either obtained from public pounds (people's former pets bought for a few cents each), are purpose-bred in factories and a small percentage are stolen from wildlife reserves and shipped to laboratories.

: So what do you think is animal testing still bad well if you think so I think that it is good. Think of it this way the animals are helping us to live longer.

The animals don't have much of a choice in the matter. Nevertheless, the increase in the human lifespan this century had very little or nothing to do with pharmaceutical-chemical products. It was due to improvements in SOCIAL CONDITIONS such as improvements in hygiene, sanitation/sewerage systems, better nutrition (which made people’s immune systems stronger), & improved housing (so people weren't crowded together which meant infections spread to fewer people). Remember that before this century most people in now industrialised countries lived in their own filth (as most people in the world still do and consequently they don't live very long).

In Australia, “almost 80 per cent of the reduction in infant mortality between the 1880s and the 1970s occurred prior to the 1930s.” ( Dr. R. Taylor, Medicine out of Control, 1979: p.9). Extensive vaccination did not begin in Australia until the mid-1930s and for some diseases did not commence until the 1960s and later. Likewise sulfur drugs and antibiotics were not introduced until mid-century. This is what happened in the other western countries such as the UK, and USA. The drug lobby takes credit for the increase in human survival rates and longevity when in fact they had nothing to do with it! It happened before-hand. But of course, most people have never truly researched medical history so they believe the drug lobby propaganda without question... and many of us pay with our lives for our ignorance.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup