Tattoo Forum with Gallery: ask your tattoo questions, upload your own tattoo pictures or rate and comment other member’s tattoos!

robertz · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: Animal Testing

dont know if this has already been thread, so i appologise in advance if it has...

but i was just wondering, do any people agree with animal testing? if so what are your thoughts about it? does anyone not agree with it? if so what are your thoughts?...

i myself dont agree with animal testing...

robertz

p.s. i am not here to cause a big row or any arguements, i am just here to find out what peoples thoughts am on the subject...

rowdy · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject:

If the testing is for genuine medical research i dont like it but if it can find cures for terrible disieses then i think it should be allowed.If however the testing is for cosmetics or some other non medical things im not in favour .The trouble is i eat meat i know its off topic but i wish i could give it up, Crying or Very sad

Rach · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:16 am Post subject:

I'm against it, but find it hard to find things that aren't tested. Plus, I'm a student so its not like I've got lots of money either. Though, if its for cures and that yes.

But I don't agree with all medical things, they do some awful things to animals just to see if it'll work.

Garyzda1 · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject:

I haven't given it much thought, but don't really like the idea.

I'm also a proud member of PETA.

By PETA I mean.......... People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. Shocked

rowdy · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject:

Trust yoo

,you do know im gonna have to sort out a war now Rolling Eyes

.sigh only just got rid of nazi.Im off for a cry now. Sad

John Olexa · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

I am 100% against it. I'm AM a long time PETA member /activist

Statistics published by government authorities and research-oversight bodies in North America and Europe reveal that the vast majority of the cruelest and most painful animal experiments are conducted to satisfy government-mandated testing requirements. In these tests, animals such as birds, dogs, fish, guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, rats, and even monkeys are forced to swallow or inhale massive doses of a test substance—which can cause severe abdominal pain, paralysis, swelling and ulceration of the skin and/or eyes, convulsions and seizures, and bleeding from the nose, mouth, and genitals—before they are poisoned to death or killed by the experimenter.

No animal test in use today has ever been properly scientifically validated according to internationally agreed-upon criteria, a fact that calls into question the reliability, accuracy, and relevance of animal-test results as predictors of possible human-health or environmental hazards. The following examples illustrate this unreliability:

One international study examined the results of rat and mouse “lethal dose” tests for 50 chemicals and found that these tests were able to predict toxicity in humans with, at best, only 65 percent accuracy.
During the Draize eye- and skin-irritation test, rabbits are immobilized in full-body restraints while a substance is dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto their shaved skin. One study found that the Draize test “grossly over predicted the effects that could be seen in the human eye,” and another concluded that the test “does not reflect the eye irritation hazard for man.” The human four-hour patch skin test has proved to provide chemical skin-irritation data that are “inherently superior to that given by a surrogate model, such as the rabbit.”
With respect to the standard rat test for toxicity to the developing nervous system, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel concluded that the tests “must be further refined to develop more sensitive endpoints which are relevant to significant outcomes in humans.”

So despite a longstanding bias on the part of toxicologists and regulators who claim that animal tests are intrinsically more relevant than in vitro and other non-animal methods, the reality is that the results of nonvalidated animal tests are always questionable and are subject to vastly differing interpretations and often-successful legal challenges. Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel laureate in medicine, wrote in Chemical and Engineering News that “it is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go through new chemicals in the blind way that we have at the present time, and reach credible conclusions about the hazards to human health.” The solution lies in the development and use of scientifically validated non-animal test methods.

By PETA I mean.......... People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. Shocked

[/quote]

chic · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject:

calm down...

whats going on here then...

Garyzda1 · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject:

[quote="John Olexa"]Garyzda1, fuck you asshole![/quote]

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Rolling Eyes

Funny how in all of your posts that are long and full of info like the one before this, you never give credit to the site you copied and pasted from.

First off, my original reply in regards to animal testing you must have missed the first sentence where I said " I haven't given it much thought, but don't really like the idea.". The later part was a joke that for some reason you took as some huge insult.

John, Please accept my apology.

I did not reallise that your grasp on reallity was so weak and that my post was going to damage your dellicate psyche. Maybe you should get some parental controls put on your computer to shelter you from this type of material?

Again sorry if my post hurt in some way.

You would have gotten an apology from me without making the pathetic post you did had you of tried.

Keep up the great google work.

Cheers,

Gary.

chic · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject:

at least he researched it.
now stop it, heated discussions dont solve anything...
accept the apology and dont waste any more energy...
this subject is very hard to please both sides..
so maybe we can forget it...

rowdy · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject:

OHHHHHHHHHHHKAY you know i love ya both ,but thats enough guys it stops RIGHT NOW.I am asking you BOTH !!!!!!,please dont start.Iexpect better from you two ,how long have you two been members?. I had enough from that nazi arse im damned if im letting you two normal people start, Please guys dont lets start getting heavy here.If you dont take notice of me ,ill turn you both over to chic fulltime.Now GENTLEMEN lets have no more .THANK YOU i do hope we dont have to take this any further .

John Olexa · Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:

I ASKED YOU BOTH NOT TO POST ANYMORE COMMENTS ON THIS .AM I JUST WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO BE POLITE ????.IF I ASK YOU TO LEAVE IT ,I MEAN LEAVE IT. I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS ON ANNIMAL TESTING NOW, HOWEVER I AM OFFENDED BY YOUR TOTAL DISREGARD FOR MY REQUEST NOT TO POST ANYTHING ELSE ,SO NOW I HAVE TO STOP IT IN ITS TRACKS BECAUSE I CAN SEE WHERE ITS HEADING.NO MORE MEANS NO MORE. Evil or Very Mad

ROWDY.

JOHNS POST DELETED TO AVOID FURTHER DISRUPTION TO THE SITE.