EnviroLink Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_9Vb6tL ... bedded#t=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFtJeKojFfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOKWFPCUcDk

Comes the Sun..........

Letizia:

Sometimes, it is hard to believe you are serious about not wanting animals to be used in research. Here you are posting another set of you tube clips, without reference to what has been going on in the discussion before, and also used in another strand. Laaaaaazy! Why can you not summarize your own views based on the clips? I for one have no desire to go and see any of these clips, simply because that would suggest yet one more viewer has seen them. And since I refuse to be on face book or you tube (you know the joke: both are not-working tools?) I cannot indicate I don't like them either. Not that that makes any difference, any such items are only watched and liked by the "true believers" who are convinced anything on youtube is the unvarnished and undoctored truth. Oh well, back to Grumpy Cat.... (my own)...

Cobie,

I am not lazy: I am very active in this period to spread around leaflets, manifests, posters about Stop Vivisection.
And I am going to the manifestations for Stop Vivisection in Venice in occasion of the Cinema Festival.
I am speaking about the topic trying to inform as many people as possible.


In the first video are speaking some biologists, neurologists, immunologists etc. about replacing animals in research for cancer, brain diseases, respiratory diseases.

In the second video you can see some beagles touching the grass and seeing the sun for the first time after a life in a lab.

In the third video you see how BIO-ENGEENERING AND COMPUTER MODELLING can replace animal testing and give better results and a safer medicine.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

Hello Letizia: I am not going to look at those clips for reasons given. However, I can assure you that when ever possible animals are replaced - tell me, have you ever heard of the "three Rs"? They stand for the aim in all experiments: Reduction (of numbers of animals used, to the minimum needed to get a statistically significant outcome) often though Refinement, new technology and techniques, and Replacement, either by non-animal methods or by using a "lesser" animal as a model. To obtain money to do animal research, you have to argue using these principles. How many animals, why this species, why these methods, and have you done a literature search to see if there are alternatives to your use of animals? Now you seem to regard these as mere words that are ignored, but you could not get a grant application looked at if you did not stick to these rules. You don't believe me, do you? And unless you have permission from your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, you will not be able to get animals even if you have the grant. You don't believe me do you? Sounding too much as if research animals have protection? Does not fit your views, no doubt? If you ever bothered to go to a research defense society web site, you will find lots of examples of 3Rs. Do you know how much is now done using zebra fish instead of "higher" vertebrates? Or what about that great research work horse, the fruitfly? Or horseshoe crabs? If not, I suggest you try and educate yourself before voicing spurious arguments or downright offensive language about research and researchers. As for beagles in labs, you have not read the guidelines for the uses of dogs in research, have you? (oh, sorry - these are just words to you, I forgot). And what if a beagle never sniffed grass? Dogs are not horses. It is not physical but psychological attention dogs need, and they must be given such, by law. Check it out. As for using bio-engineering or computer modelling, they are used extensively but if you know anything about computer programming (do you? or as much as you know about animals and their needs or animal research?) you must know the GIGO principle - Garbage In, Garbage Out- in other words, it is no use trying to model what happens in a living organism if you do not have good data to start with. And where do these come from, you think? Modelling is only one of the ways to understand life, its normal functions, and disease processes. The other are all those methoda which you think are replacements, such as case studies, epidemiology, tissue culture, etc. In reality, each of these is one of the methods used, just like animal research is. So by all means, like so many animal rights people I have met, go give yourself a rosy glow by handing out leaflets - but don't check the nearest wastepaper basket.... your leaflets do nothing for animals, nothing, if they are of the standard of argument you provide here.

Animal research can ALWAYS be replaced by the alternative methods.
Animal research has never been validated as a scientific method.
To apply an alternative method is always required the validation process. This bureaucracy stop the use of the alternative methods also when it is possible and more useful than animal research.

"Results from animal tests are not transferrable between species, and therefore can not guarantee product safety for humans.... In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Herbert Gundersheimer, dr.med.

For decades, the link between smoking and lung cancer was challenged because it couldn't be shown in mice. NEAVS

Cobie, I think that you don't want watch my videos because you are worry to be persuaded.
Or maybe because you know you are wrong but you want avoid to face your conscience, and you prefer go out of the responsibility hiding yourself behind the excuse that you don't know.
But you can't hide your conscience because you refuse to know, to see, to watch.
Ignorance don't save from guilty when you have the possibility to know and you deliberately refuse to know.

I want post a 2 hours documentary half in Italian and half in English language.
The documentary is about the research for the cures for cancer. The topic of animal research is not touched.
But there is a clear explanation about how the health system, the drug companies and the official medicine work.
It speaks about the accepted official methods like chemotherapy, medicines and surgery.
And the alternative methods: sodium bicarbonate, vitamin b17, mistletoe, marijuana, shark cartilage etc.
It worth to be watched.
Have you ever seen some relative, friend, acquaintance etc. dying for cancer because he was doing chemotherapy and following exactly the official medical prescriptions??????

This documentary will be helpful for you and people around you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RUrIO3Emws

http://www.signoraggio.it/cancro-le-cur ... -mazzucco/

I took it from Signoraggio.it

No, even the supporters of alternate methods you actually know something of the issue disagree with you.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/ ... ya-iccvam/

Consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential health and safety hazards. U.S. regulatory agencies that require or use toxicity test data are responsible for protecting human and animal health and the environment. To carry out this mission, agencies require that all toxicity test methods used for regulatory purposes are based on sound science and are able to adequately identify hazards.

Human and animal responses to toxicants are complex, and difficult to accurately assess using only in vitro systems or computer models. The term in vitro refers to experiments performed in laboratory containers, such as test tubes or petri dishes,with living tissues, organs, or cells obtained from animals or people. No single in vitro test method is currently available to serve all regulatory needs for a specific testing area. Rather, integrated approaches using alternative test methods, conventional animal testing, and other information about the properties of a test substance are used to accurately assess hazards.



Yes, it has. By the definition given by the humane society:

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cos ... tests.html

Step 3: Validating

Once an alternative test has been developed by a scientist, it must be scientifically "validated," or evaluated in multiple laboratories to see if its results reliably predict outcomes in people. Validation is sometimes a frustratingly slow process, and the United States has unfortunately proved to be far slower at validating alternatives than the European Union.





Yes, there is always the need to give evidence to support the usefulness of a method in practice. You may assume the alternative will work better, but the scientists need evidence as do the people whose lives may be at risk.



There is no guarantee of product safety using any method, including your proposed alternatives. The goal is to minimize the risk for the majority of the people. Protection from legal liability by testing for unsafe products is also protecting the consumer. The problem is you can never test all possible variations to ensure a complete protection using any method.

As for cancer, the thought it was one disease has been discounted for years now. Cancer is several diseases with several causes and treatments and different treatment programs work differently even with similar types of cancer.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

Hello Letizia: I don't think I am lazy when I do not want to see the videos you posted - I think that if you post a link, you should have the courtesy to provide a brief summary of what is in a video so people can make up their minds whether they want to spend their valuable time watching. And why does it prove anything if a film on cancer treatments does not mention animal research? Do you really think chemotherapy treatments were developed without it? Come to that, why do you ask, have I ever seen the discomfort of someone receiving chemotherapy? Of course I have, so what? If the alternative is to die of cancer, that is not exactly a kind death; but regardless, any patient has the right to refuse treatment - as a good friend of mine did, and I don't know whether he would have suffered more if he had continued chemotherapy. But he might still be alive..... even if suffering. Talking about suffering: you keep repeating the AV mantra that laboratory animals suffer stress. Prove it. You don't know about the the 3Rs or laboratory animal science, do you? Tell me how the most common lab animals, mice and rats, need to be housed and taken care of by law[i] and then tell me why you think they are stressed. Remember again that [i]I do not have to prove they are not, since you made the claim.

And now I am not just mad, but lazy as well.... what does that make you?