Subject of this Answer:
Question answered by ThedaBera in Animal Rights
nicholez@..., a user from metacrawler.com, asked this question on 6/20/2000:
HI I'm Nichole, I'm writing a research paper on anti-vivisection or animal experimentation and was wondering what your view point on this issue is? Has animal experiments really benefited us or is there another way to find cures for diseases and make-up testing. Also is it true that some of the test that were preformed on animals gave false results due to the cell structure on animals and humans are different? If you could give me any additional information on this topic I would appreciate it greatly
ThedaBera gave this response on 6/23/2000:
Wow, Nicole, this is a big, huge, question and one whose answer is very important to me and something I don't want to take lightly! But it is so late at night and I am incredibly tired, so I will do my very best here and if you need any further information you can always write to me.
I couldn't be more opposed to vivisection. Just the word itself means live cutting. I do not believe that we can extrapolate data from experiments performed on animals. Nor do I believe we should do this. I am vehemently, morally opposed to this. I think it often boils down to whether are person is speciest, and believes that we take precedence over the rights of any other living beings. Well, I don't.
I know of countless experiments that were outright fraud, dreamed up to divert funding. From pain testing animals held in stereotaxic devices by giving their testes an occasional squeeze with a plyers (don't doubt me on this I've seen it), to tiny little baby monkey's whose eyes were taped shut and whose heads were wired up with electrodes whose wires ended in a bunch of nothingness out of site of the visitirs trotted through for funding, to baboon head bashing experiments conducted in a basement laboratory. It's gruesome and it is evil and there is nothing you will ever say to me to convince me otherwise. Not even if you told me it would save my own life or the life of my beloved son. I do not believe that one single life of another takes precedence over mine, but more importantly I know that there is no such thing as a beneficial sacrifice of an animal made on our behalf. Animal research is fraud, it is experimentation, tinkering, delay and waste.
There is plenty of documented proof of the completely insensitive, unprofessional, unclinical conditions in which many of these so called experiments are performed. I have seen video tapes of students making jokes about animals while they suffered, as they were being subjected to brutal forms of torture.
I couldn't possibly begin to cover all of this here but if you simply type vivisection and the word fraud in any search engine you will find plenty of information to satisfy your needs. Think of it this way, if there had ever been one major significant advance in medicine based on animal research don't you think they'd shout it to the heavens? Don't you think they would trot it out and tout it?
Did you know that many major medications were held back precisely because of animal research. A very important and widely used heart medication, digitalis, was held up and denied to many heart patients who could have benefited, had they not spent years testing it in dogs who had a completely opposite reaction to it than humans. Many animals will go into complete arrest and die when given medications that are so basic to us we take them over the counter. There have also been many medicines that have had extremely adverse reactions in humans when in animals there were none. Thalidomide is one that comes immediately to mind as well as many experimental vaccines.
Bear in mind that even after drugs have been tested on animals they still must be tested on humans before we are ever able to use them. Since we must ultimately test them on humans anyway, why then can we not start with human cell cultures and computer modelling and then skip the whole animal torture part of the equation? The answer is funding.
Did you know that a Simian infected with HIV will never develop AIDS, precisiely because he is so very differnet from us genetically?
It goes on and on.
I am also opposed to killing animals for food.
I will try to come back and paste a good article in here for you, there isn't enough room in this box for it, they told me no : (
ThedaBera gave this follow-up answer on 6/23/2000:
I am going to go ahead and paste in an article that I got from Lanshark who got it from the British Anti Vivisection Society. Good luck on your paper. I hope you take the opposing viewpoint as anything else is unethical immoral and evil.
"Here's part of the text of a leaflet produced by the British Anti-Vivisection Association, PO Box 82, Kingswood, Bristol BS15 1YF.
There are endless possibilities for producing irrefutable evidence in support of any theory, through the use of various animal species; all one has to do is to select the appropriate species.
Do you want to prove that the amanita is by no means a deadly mushroom, but rather a delicacy fit for humans?
Just feed it to a rabbit, morning, noon and night. He will thrive on it.
Do you want to ruin the citrus fruit growers?
Then feed their lemons to cats, who die from too much vitamin C.
Do we wish to prove that prussic acid, the mere smell of which can kill a human being, makes a fine aperatif?
Then let's feed it to toads and sheep.
Do we want to stop cooks from using parsley?
Let's give it to the parrot, and you will find him stone dead the next morning.
Or do we want penicillin to disappear from all drugstore counters?
Let's give guinea-pigs a taste of it, and they will promptly die from it.
The amount of opium a porcupine can actually swallow in one lump with no trouble at all would keep a human addict groggy for two weeks if he just smoked it, let alone what it would do to him if he just swallowed it.
To convince consumers that botulin is harmless, just add a bit of this poison to some cat-food.
The cat will lick its lips. But the cat's traditional game, the mouse, will die from it as if struck by lightning.
Moonshiners are responsible for blinding thousands of people, owing to the methyl-alcohol in their booze.
But this same methyl-alcohol doesn't affect the eyes of most laboratory animals.
Arsenic is supposed to be poisonous?
That is a pure invention of the crime writers. The proof? Sheep can tolerate a considerable quantity of arsenic.
Does your pussycat have the sniffles?
Be sure not to give her any aspirin unless, of course, you want to kill her.
Are you asked to demonstrate the uselessness of vitamin C? Then remove it entirely from the diet of some animal that's close at hand - a dog, cat, rat, mouse, hamster.
They will nevertheless stay healthy, because their organisms produce their own vitamin C. But we may not withhold it from guinea-pigs, primates, or humans. Deprived of all vitamin C they would eventually all die from scurvy.
One hundred milligrams of scopalamine leaves dogs and cats unaffected; but five milligrams are sufficient to kill a human being.
Strychnine, as popular among the murderers in detective stories as arsenic, has no effect at all on guinea-pigs, chickens, or monkeys, not even in a dosage which would put a whole human family into convulsions.
Hemlock, well-known through the death of Socrates, is dangerous because of its similarity to parsley, but is eaten with great relish by goats, sheep, and horses.
Amylnitrate dangerously raises the internal pressure of the eyes of a dog, but lowers the pressure within the human eye.
The foxglove (digitalis) was formerly considered to be dangerous for the heart because, when tested on dogs, it raised their blood-pressure.
For this reason the use of this medicament, which is of undisputed value for the human heart, was delayed by many years.
Novalgin is an anaesthetic for humans, but in cats it causes excitement and salivation, similar to what occurs in animals suffering from rabies.
Cycloserin is used for tuberculosis patients, but has no effect on guinea-pigs and rats which have been made tuberculous artificially.
The anti-inflammatory Phenyl-butazone can be administered to dogs and other animals in high doses, for it quickly loses its effect in their bodies.
But if similar doses were given to humans, poisoning would soon set in, because this medicament needs 100 to 150 times longer to become inactive and checked in its effects.
Chloramphenicol often seriously damages the blood-producing bone marrow of humans, but not the marrow of animals.
Acidium oroticum has a healing influence on the human liver, but causes fattiness in the liver of rats.
Chlorpromazine damages the human liver, but not the livers of laboratory animals.
Methyl fluoroacetate has a toxic effect on mammals, but the rat can tolerate a dosage forty times higher than the dose that kills a dog. And man? Will he react like a rat, or a dog? Or neither? In a nutshell, one only needs to find the appropriate animal species to obtain the desired answer; black or white, positive or negative. You name it, they will get it.
That is a kind of elastic, malleable science, like the dough we mould in the kitchen. But it is tragic that some would have us believe that they can manufacture human health in the same way.
Even if you are no expert, no specialist, it should not be difficult to draw a conclusion of fundamental importance from the examples we just quoted. If animals react in such a different way from human beings, how can one test on them medications that are intended for us?