Scum of the lowest kind

[JOHNNYAITCH]

At least we have moved on from the chain smoking beagles, I mean I'm not one for taking up causes or judging the past but that was just wrong.

 

Couldn't agree more

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Cheeky and others

 

If I remember rightly, wasn't the production of insulin and consequent treatment of diabetes in humans and in dogs a direct result of animal testing?

 

Something to do with pigs and rabbits. Although I may have dreamt that last bit after falling asleep after a cheese and nicotine patch supper.

 

You may well be right but there may not have been any alternatives and as I've said we should be striving hard to find alternatives

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Apparently I'm either selfish or misguided. Or neither of course..I could just be right.

 

And all you UKIPERs are either racist or too stupid to see what UKIP really is all about. Or wanted to vote for the party that wanted out of the EU and new perfectly well what you were voting for.

 

Always happy to bring a little light into dull lives...how does the song go "Bring me sunshine...."

[Paul6754]

My opinion, for what it's worth:

This one is probably the most controversial I imagine, but medicinal testing on animals if it's progressive to finding cures for diseases etc I agree with.

 

Although much progress has been made over the last 50 years in the use of in vitro methods of testing for new medicines there is and the chances are there probably never will be an alternative to assessing the toxicity and efficacy of a potential new medicine in animals before first exposure in humans. As far as I'm aware, every medicine/drug on the market today has been tested in animals before being dosed in humans.

[Paul6754]

Cheeky and others

 

If I remember rightly, wasn't the production of insulin and consequent treatment of diabetes in humans and in dogs a direct result of animal testing?

 

Something to do with pigs and rabbits. Although I may have dreamt that last bit after falling asleep after a cheese and nicotine patch supper.

 

I think the first Insulin produced and used in humans was by extraction of the molecule from the pancreas of cows hence it was Bovine Insulin and it's toxicity and probably its efficacy would have been assessed in animals, this was pre-WWII. The technology to manufacture Human Insulin, which is used these days, was not available 'til the late 70's/early 80's and it subsequently supplanted the use of animal insulin in Insulin dependent diabetes. The toxicity and efficacy of Human Insulin would almost certainly have been evaluated in animals.

[kevin_struggles]

Have all your arguments in this thread been 'to educate in a mature way'?

 

No I have mostly been mocking in an obviously childish way.

 

The thread has been titled in a negative and provocative way so it has provoked a negative reaction from me.

[kevin_struggles]

Apparently I'm either selfish or misguided. Or neither of course..I could just be right.

 

And all you UKIPERs are either racist or too stupid to see what UKIP really is all about. Or wanted to vote for the party that wanted out of the EU and new perfectly well what you were voting for.

 

Always happy to bring a little light into dull lives...how does the song go "Bring me sunshine...."

 

At least we have Bea to tell us whats right, otherwise known as what she thinks and whats wrong, otherwise known as different opinions from hers which are of course nasty/evil things.

[Andyregs]

No I have mostly been mocking in an obviously childish way.

 

The thread has been titled in a negative and provocative way so it has provoked a negative reaction from me.

 

So does that make you look 'immature and incapable of serious debate'? (To use your description).

[kevin_struggles]

So does that make you look 'immature and incapable of serious debate'? (To use your description).

 

To who? I'm not attempting to be serious, its difficult to mock seriously it kind of defeats the object.

 

Baby foxes for goodness sake, its like story time at the nursery. How can I take that seriously.

 

Ahh bless poor little red bow wows being chased by the nasty tories with their naughty doggy woggies

 

I dont have strong feelings ether way so a free vote between those who are paid to make these decisions is fine by me, I dont see the problem with re-visiting it to see if there is a case for removing the ban. I doubt it will be removed but half a million people marched on London to protests against the ban when it was being put in place so there is obviously another opinion out there.

[blinkme]

To who? I'm not attempting to be serious, its difficult to mock seriously it kind of defeats the object.

 

Baby foxes for goodness sake, its like story time at the nursery. How can I take that seriously.

 

Ahh bless poor little red bow wows being chased by the nasty tories with their naughty doggy woggies

 

I dont have strong feelings ether way so a free vote between those who are paid to make these decisions is fine by me, I dont see the problem with re-visiting it to see if there is a case for removing the ban. I doubt it will be removed but half a million people marched on London to protests against the ban when it was being put in place so there is obviously another opinion out there.

 

how can you take cruelty to animals seriously?

 

i don't know? by not being a ****?

[Bea Smith]

At least we have Bea to tell us whats right, otherwise known as what she thinks and whats wrong, otherwise known as different opinions from hers which are of course nasty/evil things.

 

 

Nobody tells you what is right, that's up to you to decide.

 

If the admittedly strident and angry title of the thread offends you, then you are taking far too much notice of me as a person and not thinking about the subject matter. It was titled that way because I was angry at the story and I make no apology for that, or for using the word babies for fox cubs which was chosen to highlight their vulnerability and fragility, having been deprived of their mother at an age where they needed her.

 

It's rather like someone starting a thread on ISIS beheadings or Jimmy Savile abusing children, they could put the same thread title - would you then come on and defend or make light of ISIS and child abusers because you didn't like the title of the thread or the person starting it ?

 

I often change opinion on things and ideas if new facts come to light, so I don't presume to tell you what is nasty or evil on very many things at all, if you are ok with the facts of this story then that is your decision - but I am not, and I am entitled to voice this.

 

I really give no weight to your personal opinion of me, and would hope for your own sake and sanity that you don't care what internet posters, who let's face it are anonymous to all intents and purposes, think of you either.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Research into insulin was not thrown off track for decades because of the use of animal experimentation but because of mistakes by scientists/researchers in interpreting the results of what they observed. It's preposterous to suggest it was because of lab animal tests and that what the scientists got wrong somehow invalidates the use of animal testing.

 

As it says in the quoted article : "The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]

 

It was bad science/research that was the cause of any set backs not the decision to use animal experimentation per se

 

There is a big battle to be fought regarding the use of animals in research and the promotion of alternatives but it won't be won by misleading arguments however well intended.

[Bea Smith]

Research into insulin was not thrown off track for decades because of the use of animal experimentation but because of mistakes by scientists/researchers in interpreting the results of what they observed. It's preposterous to suggest it was because of lab animal tests and that what the scientists got wrong somehow invalidates the use of animal testing.

 

As it says in the quoted article : "The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]

 

It was bad science/research that was the cause of any set backs not the decision to use animal experimentation per se

 

There is a big battle to be fought regarding the use of animals in research and the promotion of alternatives but it won't be won by misleading arguments however well intended.

 

All of the above is of course, in your own opinion. Are you as qualified as those who wrote the article, who have their own opinion based on scientific and medical proof.

Calling it preposterous and misleading sounds good on an internet post but ads no weigh and does not make your opinion the correct one.

 

Their point that if the research had been done in the correct direction sounds pretty convincing to me. There are dozens of well qualified and credible doctors and scientists who do not agree that insulin is always the best way to fight diabetes as well, and the massive continuing increase in the number of cases of diabetes strengthens their argument. If you don't agree at least have the honesty and decency to quote and not paraphrase my posts as you have done several times recently.

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9486/20140703/diabetic-and-over-50-insulin-shots-not-best-treatment-says-study.htm

 

http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-reasons-why-animal-testing-is-pointless/

 

This may also be of interest to some readers of this thread -

 

http://forskautandjurforsok.se/in-english/

I think the 'well-intentioned' bit at the end is known as 'damning by faint praise'.

 

Another point, it's interesting that insulin is always quoted in these arguments but nobody mentions Thalidomide or the injections given to those sent to the Middle East who then became seriously ill with Gulf War syndrome.

 

We have to take note that 98 per cent of human illnesses do not affect animals, and the drug Vioxx was shown to protect heart tissue in animal experiments, then linked to heart attacks and strokes in 139,000 humans.

 

In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

 

 

In addition,88 per cent of stillbirths are caused by drugs pronounced safe in animal tests, and 92 per cent of drugs passed after animal testing fail immediately when tried on humans because they either don't work or are dangerous.

 

Scientific references for these facts are in the link below, please read it and think whether you trust the drug companies or the doctors who have no confidence in some of them (see point 6).

 

Read more: http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-reasons-why-animal-testing-is-pointless/#ixzz3dXA7D6nM

[Paul6754]

This really deserves another thread, as breeding baby foxes for hunting is a bit different to medical experiments.

but...

 

 

It isn't quite as simple as that though, as animal experiments put back the cause of insulin development by decades;-

 

http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq08.shtml

 

Weren't lab animals responsible for the discovery of diabetes and development of insulin?

 

Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing, asserting that insulin harvested from slaughterhouses saved the lives of many diabetics. This is true. But the use of animals in the search for the cause of diabetes has been overwhelmingly counterproductive.

 

Diabetes affects in excess of 125 million people worldwide and is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the pancreas' role in the disease. When they removed the pancreas from dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were claiming had proven the existence of insulin:

 

"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]

 

They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had isolated insulin - not animal experiments.

 

Scientists later modified the in vitro process they had used to isolate insulin, successfully mass-producing pig and cattle insulin reaped in slaughterhouses. This animal-derived insulin indeed saved lives, but not without complications. It also created allergic reactions and exposed patients to serious health risks. Had they recognised these dangers, scientists would have hastened to develop human insulin.

 

Insulin is only a treatment for diabetes, not a cure. The exact biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is yet to be discovered. If the funds devoted to studies had gone to human research, would we still have this plague?

 

 

RESULT:

Lab animal tests threw diabetes research off track for decades.

 

Absolute total b*ll*cks. You're talking about animal exps. in 1922 when man's understanding of most things was not that developed, by the late 1930's bovine insulin was available to treat humans but the problem with bovine Insulin is that although it works in humans it is antigenic (and expected to be) 'cause the human immune system recognizes the protein as foreign and mounts an immune response to it. So the choice was die from Diabetes or take Bovine Insulin and deal with the immune response. Hence the need to develop a source of Human Insulin which wouldn't be antigenic to humans but the technology to produce Human Insulin wasn't available 'til the 70's when recombinant DNA technology was developed.

 

There are many 'cause of diabetes including lack of production of Insulin, a faulty Insulin receptor and faulty signal transduction of the Insulin signal, its a chronic disease and like many chronic diseases a challenge to treat never mind cure but the lives of Type I and II diabetics have certainly been improved by the scientific community using animal experiments for which there are no alternatives.

 

Heaven knows who writes this crap you quote, I presume its animal liberationists who are some of the most misinformed, chips on shoulder idiots who walk this planet.

[Paul6754]

All of the above is of course, in your own opinion. Are you as qualified as those who wrote the article, who have their own opinion based on scientific and medical proof.

Calling it preposterous and misleading sounds good on an internet post but ads no weigh and does not make your opinion the correct one.

 

Their point that if the research had been done in the correct direction sounds pretty convincing to me. There are dozens of well qualified and credible doctors and scientists who do not agree that insulin is always the best way to fight diabetes as well, and the massive continuing increase in the number of cases of diabetes strengthens their argument. If you don't agree at least have the honesty and decency to quote and not paraphrase my posts as you have done several times recently.

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9486/20140703/diabetic-and-over-50-insulin-shots-not-best-treatment-says-study.htm

 

http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-reasons-why-animal-testing-is-pointless/

 

This may also be of interest to some readers of this thread -

 

http://forskautandjurforsok.se/in-english/

I think the 'well-intentioned' bit at the end is known as 'damning by faint praise'.

 

Another point, it's interesting that insulin is always quoted in these arguments but nobody mentions Thalidomide or the injections given to those sent to the Middle East who then became seriously ill with Gulf War syndrome.

 

We have to take note that 98 per cent of human illnesses do not affect animals, and the drug Vioxx was shown to protect heart tissue in animal experiments, then linked to heart attacks and strokes in 139,000 humans.

 

In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.

 

 

In addition,88 per cent of stillbirths are caused by drugs pronounced safe in animal tests, and 92 per cent of drugs passed after animal testing fail immediately when tried on humans because they either don't work or are dangerous.

 

Scientific references for these facts are in the link below, please read it and think whether you trust the drug companies or the doctors who have no confidence in some of them (see point 6).

 

Read more: http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-reasons-why-animal-testing-is-pointless/#ixzz3dXA7D6nM

 

I could give you chapter and verse on Vioxx and Thalidomide but I will save my breath but again you're being very selective about what you quote, look at the whole literature not just one article that agrees with your agenda.

 

The bottom line is that there are currently no other ways to assess the toxicity and efficacy of new medicines other than using whole animals before dosing in humans and there is much correlation with humans. Don't believe anything else you read. Much effort and money has been spent over the last 50 yrs and many in vitro tests have been developed to limit the number of animals used in drug research.