Low life scum,lowest of the low.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If a 6 year old or someone with psychological problems badly hurts a dog deliberately they should be used for new drug testing?? Laughable

[Paul6754]

I am serious when I say that anyone caught doing the things to swans, pets shown here should be used for new drug testing instead of animals. the results would be more reliable, and animals spared being used for tests that are not proven to benefit anyone. I don't care if it is kids doing it either - 12 and 13 year olds can be far more evil and dangerous than most adults.

 

If the drug turns out to damage them, then so be it, they have done the world a favour after all. And publicise it widely to deter,

 

The Nazis were the only people to test drugs/chemicals on humans without prior administration to animals, you've aligned yourself with and have the same mindset as some very unsavory characters.

 

Quote "Tests that are not proven to benefit anyone", so answer these two question, given that testing drugs on animals is extremely costly and time consuming and eats into the patent time of a drug why do you think that Pharma Co's still carry them out? Do you have any idea of why potential new drugs are tested on animals? Also, new drugs are eventually administered to humans in the development phase so experimentation is also done on human volunteers but in the civilized world only after initial risk assessment in animals.

 

Also consider that drugs not only benefit the quality of life and increase life expectancy in humans but also do the same in animals including many types of household pets, so drug tests on animals and humans not only benefit humans but animals as well.

[Bea Smith]

The Nazis were the only people to test drugs/chemicals on humans without prior administration to animals, you've aligned yourself with and have the same mindset as some very unsavory characters.

 

Quote "Tests that are not proven to benefit anyone", so answer these two question, given that testing drugs on animals is extremely costly and time consuming and eats into the patent time of a drug why do you think that Pharma Co's still carry them out? Do you have any idea of why potential new drugs are tested on animals? Also, new drugs are eventually administered to humans in the development phase so experimentation is also done on human volunteers but in the civilized world only after initial risk assessment in animals.

 

Also consider that drugs not only benefit the quality of life and increase life expectancy in humans but also do the same in animals including many types of household pets, so drug tests on animals and humans not only benefit humans but animals as well.

 

 

 

You are a nasty piece of work, and ignorant in every sense of the word. Your pharma friends in the good old United Sadists of Amerika have a lot more in common with the Nazis, as the us have done things Adolf Eichmann and the Nazis would have been proud of

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm

 

http://wariscrime.com/new/the-13-most-evil-us-government-human-experiments/

 

 

spare us the bit about animals benefiting too, you don't give a damn so don't pretend. Bigger profits from waste products sold as pet food ?

 

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/730/

 

You obviously have a personal interest and make money from this, so your credibility is totally compromised.

[Bea Smith]

The Nazis were the only people to test drugs/chemicals on humans without prior administration to animals, you've aligned yourself with and have the same mindset as some very unsavory characters.

 

Quote "Tests that are not proven to benefit anyone", so answer these two question, given that testing drugs on animals is extremely costly and time consuming and eats into the patent time of a drug why do you think that Pharma Co's still carry them out? Do you have any idea of why potential new drugs are tested on animals? Also, new drugs are eventually administered to humans in the development phase so experimentation is also done on human volunteers but in the civilized world only after initial risk assessment in animals.

 

Also consider that drugs not only benefit the quality of life and increase life expectancy in humans but also do the same in animals including many types of household pets, so drug tests on animals and humans not only benefit humans but animals as well.

 

 

For anyone who thinks drug company man paul above is reasonable, please consider the following -

 

Animals are also used in medical research, in an attempt to find the causes of, and treatments for, human disease. But animal experiments are unreliable and can be dangerously misleading because animals’ bodies are different from ours, and they don’t get the same diseases as we do.

 

Thousands of chimpanzees have been used in useless experiments to find a cure for AIDS, but it is now known that, whilst it kills humans, AIDS won't kill chimpanzees. The link between smoking and lung cancer was first observed in people but because no animals developed cancer when forced to inhale tobacco smoke, vital health warnings were delayed by many years. No one knows how many people died as a result of the misleading information provided by animal experiments.

 

Drugs affect animals differently from us. Drugs such as aspirin and paracetamol, commonly used to treat people, are highly poisonous to cats. Although Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, it was not until ten years later that it was tested, first in animals, and then subsequently in humans. Early researchers chose to test penicillin on mice and the encouraging results led to its use in humans. Had they chosen to test it on hamsters or guinea pigs, it is likely that penicillin would have been discarded, as it is lethal to both species.

 

On the other hand, each year drugs that were passed safe in animal tests are withdrawn after causing serious side-effects, and even deaths, when given to people. Recent examples include Vioxx – the animal-tested arthritis drug – which was reported to have caused up to 140,000 heart attacks and strokes before being withdrawn. And the TGN1412 (‘elephant man’ drug) disaster that left six men with organ failure after tests on monkeys failed to predict these effects.

 

In the UK alone, around four million animals are used in laboratory experiments each year. Hundreds of thousands more animals are bred and killed so bits of their bodies can be used in research. In addition, millions of ‘surplus’ animals are bred but never used – they are just disposed of and their deaths are not even recorded.

[Paul6754]

You are a nasty piece of work, and ignorant in every sense of the word. Your pharma friends in the good old United Sadists of Amerika have a lot more in common with the Nazis, as the us have done things Adolf Eichmann and the Nazis would have been proud of

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm

 

http://wariscrime.com/new/the-13-most-evil-us-government-human-experiments/

 

 

spare us the bit about animals benefiting too, you don't give a damn so don't pretend. Bigger profits from waste products sold as pet food ?

 

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/730/

 

You obviously have a personal interest and make money from this, so your credibility is totally compromised.

 

You are a sad, full of hatred, misinformed puppy.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For anyone who thinks drug company man paul above is reasonable, please consider the following

 

You've admitted that you would gain satisfaction from seeing people suffer in drug tests and you accuse him of being unreasonable!!!

 

BS after your sick posts you're not worth another second of my time.....I don't deal with lowlife schadenfreude embracing liars (remember Pharmagene...or has it slipped your memory again).

[kevin_struggles]

People who hunt foxes are scum but you would be happy to see drugs tested on children?

 

Hmmmmm!!!!!! Progressive?.....Nope! Intelligent?....Nope! Reasonable?....Nope! Loony?....Yep!!!!

[Bea Smith]

You've admitted that you would gain satisfaction from seeing people suffer in drug tests and you accuse him of being unreasonable!!!

 

BS after your sick posts you're not worth another second of my time.....I don't deal with lowlife schadenfreude embracing liars (remember Pharmagene...or has it slipped your memory again).

 

Same old broken record heard it all before...you are incapable of not bickering so I expect an argumentative reply pretty quickly.

 

Anyone with any sense can see that you and this paul drug employee have turned this argument to our own ends making it about 6-year-olds who were never mentioned instead of swans and pets killed with crossbows and so on. Very clever, NOT. It is seriously obvious you don't give a flyiong fieck about animals and probably children either, but love arguing more than living beings.

[Bea Smith]

Evil worthless pieces of scum,string the ****ers up by their genitals!!!

 

Interesting that paul the pharma company voice and j aitch don't ever reply to posts like this but are highly selective in who they argue with, the ovf equivalent of a Dr Goebbels ministry of propaganda.

 

keeled56 - agree totally. JA tried to make out I had said 6-year-olds too, which was a lie an check the posts - but there are 12, 13, 14 year olds who are old enough to know exactly what they are doing and the law should be change on this and everything else to make them responsible and be punished - look at the Bulger killers, would J A have given them a telling off and sent them to bed early as punishment ?

[Bea Smith]

People who hunt foxes are scum but you would be happy to see drugs tested on children?

 

Hmmmmm!!!!!! Progressive?.....Nope! Intelligent?....Nope! Reasonable?....Nope! Loony?....Yep!!!!

 

 

If it was a 'child' of 12 or older, and they shot swans with crossbows and tortured pets, Id be happy to see flamethrowers tested on them pal. There is a time to be reasonable - this isn't it - again Id ask would you have let the bulger killers off wioth a smack on the wrist - in modern uk society kids of that age know what they are doing and know right from wrong.

[cheshirevaliant]

I sometimes wonder if Bea Smith and carl are the creation of some sort of social experiment, designed to see which one out of the hard left and hard right can have the most outlandish views. No disrespect intended, merely an observation of their internet persona.

[Bea Smith]

I sometimes wonder if Bea Smith and carl are the creation of some sort of social experiment, designed to see which one out of the hard left and hard right can have the most outlandish views. No disrespect intended, merely an observation of their internet persona.

 

I would say you have little understanding of politics, left/ right view etc from that remark, no disrespect intended of course.

 

Carl has often shown support for left-wing working class views, notably where employment is concerned. I am presuming you are calling Carl the right winger by the way, even more bizarre if not.

 

Why not tell us your own views as to what you would have happen to firstly an adult of otherwise sound mind who maims and kills and tortures animals and pets, and then a young teenager.

 

I have to say your remarks on left and right show you don't understand politics or my posts and probably not Carls either -, particularly in employment issues but not only there. If I disagree with him on other things, that doesn't mean I think he is wrong on everything and have said so before.

 

Also, find me some 'left-wingers' who agree with my posts on what to do with these animal cruelty lot, most are not 'hard left' enough and want to smack their wrist and let them off. I still consider my views on most things are tolerant, but only where nobody is being hurt.

 

The old concepts of left and right are outdated and irrelevant, but again Id say please tell us what you would do with firstly an adult whoshoots crossbows at swans and maims/kills them, or a teenager (not a 6-year-old as j a tried to lie about - read previous posts for proof - but 12-13, 14 year olds or more) who murder pets, provided they are proved of otherwise sound mind (something of an oxymoron but still) - a small step away from Jamie Bulger's killers.

 

The law on criminal responsibility needs to be lowered in modern society - a 14-year-old now is just as capable of judgement as an 18-year-old was about 30 years ago, and most 12-year-olds know all about everything now.

 

Look forward to your reply, finally although I am not bothered what you say about me, I don't think it is right for you to bring Carl into this thread when he has not posted on it, rude and provocative I'd say. However, you no doubt have your own code of manners.

[Paul6754]

Interesting that paul the pharma company voice and j aitch don't ever reply to posts like this but are highly selective in who they argue with, the ovf equivalent of a Dr Goebbels ministry of propaganda.

 

keeled56 - agree totally. JA tried to make out I had said 6-year-olds too, which was a lie an check the posts - but there are 12, 13, 14 year olds who are old enough to know exactly what they are doing and the law should be change on this and everything else to make them responsible and be punished - look at the Bulger killers, would J A have given them a telling off and sent them to bed early as punishment ?

 

Having been away from an internet connection for over a week and then absolutely consumed by the US PGA golf tourney and playin' a few holes myself and also having nothing to add to what has already been said I didn't post a reply to the OP. For the record I'm appalled that there are people who would do this sort of thing, it's pointless, senseless and the perpetrators should feel the full force of the law.

[cheshirevaliant]

I would say you have little understanding of politics, left/ right view etc from that remark, no disrespect intended of course.

 

You'd be surprised. Feel free to go back to the, interminable, UKIP thread to analyse my politics if you so desire. Whether you choose to do so is up to you, I'd be surprised if you didn't have anything better to do.

 

Regarding killing and maiming of animals for "sport/fun", I find it abhorrent, but fortunately we employ judges to come up with punishments that fit the crime (if a crime has been committed), in the main of course. They are much better qualified than me to comment. Regarding drugs trials, I'm not really a fan of returning to the era of concentration camps, regardless of crime committed.

[Bea Smith]

Having been away from an internet connection for over a week and then absolutely consumed by the US PGA golf tourney and playin' a few holes myself and also having nothing to add to what has already been said I didn't post a reply to the OP. For the record I'm appalled that there are people who would do this sort of thing, it's pointless, senseless and the perpetrators should feel the full force of the law.

 

You misinterpreted the comment I made - I was talking about you choosing to argue with me, but not replying to the other person who also expressed similar 'string em up' sentiments. I would never dream of saying someone should spend time on here rather than do 'real' things, whether it is golf, watching football or even train spotting. The internet is the biggest waste of time going, at least forums are - the news and the rest on OVF are magnificent.

Sadly, the 'full force of the law' is nowhere near enough - someone near where I live murdered a series of pets all in the same road recently and was just fined £100 and the police will not spend time on things like this. It will encourage vigilante justice, which is wrong.