KEEP IT DECENT

It is only a few weeks since the comments facility was fully restored to stories on this website. Already it is being abused with obscene, racist, cruel and downright nasty comments from an ignorant minority.

If you have a point to make please keep it within the bounds of decency expected on a community newspaper website. We do not want to shut it down again and deprive the sensible majority of their right to express a point of view.

Administrator

I will certainly not buy P&G products in future. There is already enough make up, laundry products etc. on the market and it is inexcusable for further tests to be carried out.I have seen rabbits in cages with their eyes held open with grips while liquids are dripped into the eyes until 50% of them die. Why do we take it upon oursleves to inflict such tourment on animals. It is unecessary and we have no right.

Animal testing is unnecessary, inhumane and ineffective. Proctor and Gamble must be boycotted until they change their policies.

There is absolutely no excuse for testing household products and cosmetics on animals.

I would encourage people to boycott Proctor and Gamble. Most importantly, contact them to tell them what you're doing and why.

I was informed about P & G and their barbaric testing methods years ago and have never bought any of their products since, neither do my children. I will be out campaigning on Saturday, informing others about this unacceptably, unethical manufacture; which has no plausible explanation for not adopting the readily available non animal testing methods.

I've boycotted P&G for years now. How dare any company abuse animals in order to produce yet another cleaning fluid or toiletry. My advice to shoppers is to read the label. If it doesn't say "Not tested on animals", then it usually has been. Don't pay for cruelty. When their profits fall they'll get the message.

I live in Australia where some P & G products are sold.

I was unaware that P & G were still testing on animals.

Now that I know they still are, I'll be boycotting their products and will be networking and sending out the message to everyone I know with instructions to keep forwarding.

My question to P & G is..."why do some manufacturers need to test on animals for a product that other manufacturers don't?"

Are any of you people above real? We never see comments from such a far and wide spread! Be honest, one person wrote ALL of the above.

I don't agree with animal testing, animals are stupid and must rind the questions REALLY hard. Plus it can't be easy for a rabbit to hold and use a pen or pencil!

We should test things on ourselves, preferably the consequences of guns fired at heads from close range. I think about 6 billion tests should do the trick.

We do not have access to Proctor and Gamble products here in Mongolia. But, if we did, I certainly wouldn't have them in my yurt.
Congratulations to Mr Blanchard. His Foie Gras campaign has attracted much attention over here. He must be a very fine man.

Yak yak yak. Thats all people do..

Perhaps we should start testing these items on humans instead, maybe start with the young. AD babies wanted for product testing must be under 1

I don't agree with animal testing but be aware that these animals would not be alive if it didn't happen (and we would all probably be dead due to the lack of medicines) they are bred for this purpose.

Well I honestly have been using P&G for many years and will certainly continue to do so. Their products tend to be competitively priced and are in my experience effective. No militant bunny-huggers are going to take my choices away, and frankly I'd rather they tested this stuff on rabbits and mice rather than humans. Doesn't anyone remember that human testing ****-up a while back?
Viva P&G, don't let the morons take away your choices.

While animal testing is sometimes done in inhumane ways ild much rather it was done to animals over humans. If anybody who cares so much about these animals disagrees with me feel free to donate yourself to these testing labratories.

If animal tests where not carried out there would by hundreds of thousands more deaths and disabilities from unsafe products every year. Because of animal testing some products which could have left people blind, deformed and even suffer from heart attacks have been kept off our shelves. To all the people so heavily against animal testing I have to say wake up, your in the real world. Animal testing has saved millions upon millions of lives, from unsafe cosmetic and household products to medical testing.

I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

I agree with the above comment. Animal testing is unfortunate but necessary.
Besides, P&G are probably no worse than any other company. I've used Braun products for ages and think they're the best shavers you can get. And everyone knows Duracell batteries are good - why refuse to use them just because of what these activists say?

Oops, not the above comment, I meant the one in support of animal testing.
Hey we can all imagine the worst-case scenarios 'Ceila' if that's who you really are. We're not stupid, we'd all just rather it happened to the rabbits than to us.

"I humbly suggest"
When someone uses that phrase you just know what's coming next.

I think testing on animals is unnecessary and thoroughly disgusting.
"be aware that these animals would not be alive" Have a look on the internet to see the wretched lives these animals have got. They would be better off not being born. Its daily torture for them, imagine that, and they are absolutely terrified of humans and kept permanently in cages 24/7. "We would probably all be dead due to lack of medicine" That's not true at all. Medicines have harmed people. Can you remember the TGN1412 trials? Look at the site The Absurdity of Vivisection for more failures of animal testing.
Products that state 'product not tested on animals' could mean that the ingredients have been. If you want to be sure that products are developed cruelty free Naturewatch produce a good cruelty free guide for £2.50 and you could always write to the individual companies to ask them. Might be a good idea to ask if any other organisation conduct tests on animals on their behalf, that can happen.

Do they get a certificate or an NVQ after the test is completed. Be nice if the rabbits could better themselves in society by doing all these tests.

Repeat after me, ITS ONLY A RABBIT

hefty debate. i'm gonna sit on the fence on this one. i am pro-test for medical research, but don't agree with testing components of household products on animals (surely there are not that many more compounds to discover, and surely the boffins are able to run computer programmes to see what the likely effect of a given compound is on a organism).
it's life; humans treat animals bad, treat humans bad, and the earth bad. after all we are only animals, and typically animals treat other species horrendously. we do a particulary good job of treating our own species pretty bad. you say 'stop cruelty' i say 'no'.

David G wrote:
Well I honestly have been using P&G for many years and will certainly continue to do so. Their products tend to be competitively priced and are in my experience effective. No militant bunny-huggers are going to take my choices away, and frankly I\'d rather they tested this stuff on rabbits and mice rather than humans. Doesn\'t anyone remember that human testing ****-up a while back? Viva P&G, don\'t let the morons take away your choices.

The human testing that **** up a while back was caused BECAUSE they relied on the results from testing on animals. It 'passed as safe' on animals thats why they then used it on humans. The monkeys did not show the side effects suffered by the humans even thought they had 500 times the dosage. I would have thought you wpuld have realised that.

I'm not convinced computer simulations are the way to go, after all how accurate is the weather forecast?

Testing for medicine is essential, for make up is dubious but that banned in this country already. Cant PB use the same law he thinks he can us to ban the import of foie gras and apply it to the ban of products that are tested abroad? Surely it is exactly the same argument.

Still i would be interested to see how well that would go against the 24th largest fortune 500 company as opposed to a bunch of peasant farmers in France.

I spoke to dozens of people who were very supportive of my campaign on foie gras and I put my substantial increase in votes, bucking the national trend, partly down to that.

well he didn't speak to me. i didn't even know what 'foie gras' was until i saw Gordon Ramsey's TV show last nite. I hate geese anyway, so it doesn't really bother me either way.

When the Chinese stop making bears ride bicycles on tight-ropes, I'll stop buying shampoo.

I think all animal testing is bad.

Only the other day on Hull Road, I was nearly knocked off me pushbike by a cow out doing her driving test!

And what about sheep? What good is it going to do giving them Key Stage tests at school? How is that going to help them when eating grass in a field or looking good on a restaurant plate? Honestly! This government has a lot to answer for.

favorite animals:
1. wasp
2. killer whale
3. flying squirrel
4. octopus

most hated animals:
1. millipede
2. salmon
3. urangatang
4. geese

"as opposed to a bunch of peasant farmers in France."
Didn't know they were still farming peasants in France.
Good for them

Yes the EU subsidies are very good and they don't need a lot of space. Just a nice dark barn and one crate per peasant of course we aren't allowed to farm like that any more and I think the human rights acts mean we have to call them chavs and not peasants and also give them council houses and allow them the unfettered right to breed from the age of 12.

If some bleach that is sprayed into a monkeys face blinds it, at least we know to put the warning stickers on the bottles. How else can we test products?

I agree with animal testing 100%. What else are animals for if not to serve us, be tested on and eaten? If we are not using them for testing and no one wants to eat them or pull ploughs maybe we should just exterminate them all and stop them taking up the earths resources and air which we could make more use of!

actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned.

Most of the info on the internet is from animal extremests who give one sided views.
the sort of people who will blow their granny up if she used "BOLD or Fairy"

I give my support to the 'against animal testing campaign' and haven’t bought P & G products for years. When you own an animal be it a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig or whatever, you get to know an individual personality – they’ll entertain you and they'll also teach you a lot about yourself! Whether they live in your home or sit terrified in a laboratory, they would each and every one have a personality to develop given half a chance. So the argument that they’re ‘bred for this purpose’ doesn’t wash with me. We owe it to animals to take care of and respect them, not to use and abuse them as if we had a right of passage to do so. They cannot speak for themselves but we have a choice to speak for them.

I wonder how many of these AR nutters will be at the Knavsmire today? None I bet. They can only tackle small kids going to see the spirit of the horse show.

The real value of animal testing was aptly demonstrated to me last night. It was my turn to cook. Not much in the fridge so I suggested some sponge fried in bacon fat washed down with car antifreeze. Before I gave it to the kids I tried it on next doors cat. It had trouble chewing the sponge but with a bit of antifreeze it managed to swallow most of it. Within minutes it was writhing around in agony and was dead in half an hour. Just imagine if I had fed it to my kids or worse of all, ate it myself!

hippies smell nasty.

Hundreds of companies make like-for-like products without ANY animal testing, and they are perfectly safe. In fact the UK Government clearly believes that animal testing fopr cosmetics is not necessary to ensure safe products, as they banned it in 1998! There are many, many ways of testing these products and their ingredients without using animals. I suggest people check this group's website to see exactly what P&G do to aniamls, and the alternative non-animal tested products available. It is www.boycottpandg.co.uk

And the human testing that ****ed up a while ago was AFTER they had done all the animal tests, which showed the drugs to be perfectly safe!!

that website seems a bit biased. I wonder if its put together by open minded people.

Royalty had it correct in medieval times by using human tasters/testers.
Perhaps all new product samples should be sent via Full Sutton prison??

Just a thought.

My mother died of cancer a couple of weeks ago .. she is now gone from my life ..
Would all you people who are pro animal testing like to remind me how long they have been testing on animals for cancer??

Is it 40 or 50 yrs??? and they have successfully found a cure in animals for cancer .. yet humans like my mother still die????????

The answer is yes ... they have found a cure for cancer in certain animals ... but they have yet to find a cure for cancer in humans .. why?

Are you serious?

What's your point?

Steve, shut it. You are boring everone.

They have found cures for many cancers in humans.

Are you saying they have found cures for all cancers in animals.

I'm not sure what the point your trying to make is. No i get it because they have found a cure for one type of cancer in animals they should have found one for all human cancers. what sort of **** eyed argument is that. that just the sort of weak argument that does the animal rights cause no good at all.

In fact today they have published that the survivability of a wide range of cancer has double in the last twenty years in all but lung cancers.

So because your mother died its OK for everyone elses to as well so that animals don't get killed? You need help mate.

Animal tests are pretty much a waste of time, penicillin would not be released if it was discovered today because it kills guinea pigs, yet how many millions of lives have been saved by it. It goes on because it is an easy way for academics to produce huge amounts of data and justify their grants.

As for Proctor and Gamble, which was what the story was originally about, I don't need animal tests to tell me that soap stings if you get it in your eyes - I for one will boycott P&G, I agree with the animal welfare people on this one. totally unnecessary suffering.

If one company can position successful products on the market, then so can others. It is time that we considered other ways of ensuring products are 'safe'.

LOL once again the viciously narrow-minded animal-lovers are spouting their propaganda and pasting links to their brainwashing sites.

Most people don't need to go that far. We realise that we exist as a result of the medicines, the pharmaceutical products, the household products that have been tested on animals.

The human-testing disaster was caused by non-animal testing, then animal-testing, then human-testing, so ALL levels failed, not just the animal testing. The only thing that proved is that we need to test it on larger mammals.

At the end of the day I'm willing to kill any creature that crawls across my path if it will increase the chances of me or my species surviving.

I can't see any links to 'brainwashing' sites.

And the only person so far who seems to be 'visciously narrow minded' is you, allie.

the animal rights people don't really do themselves any favours. to have a valid argument about something it's important that you don't come across as demented and fanatical, otherwise people will think that you're mad and ignore your point. Animal rights activists are right up there with the biggest loons of all time; nazis, cult worshippers, suicide bombers, people who comment on the Evening Press website...

How right you are Cllr Blanchard. Animals are not ours to experiment on. The moral position is this: animals cannot give their consent, therefore we have no right to carry out tests which are not for their benefit and which are frequently torture.

Actually, I notice that the pro-animal welfare comments on this page are moderate and reasonable. I can't say the same about those who seem to advocate mistreating animals.

Animals are not ours to experiment on.

But you are wrong there. I just had a word with the big guy upstairs and this is what he says….

And God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it; you are the masters of the fish and birds and all the animals". Genesis 1:28

So that’s final. God gives us the right to what we please with animals. Me? I like mine slightly rare with a pepper sauce.

Celia Clarke wrote:
I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Hi Celia - I am such a person, having spent many years in a contract research facility, performing tests on animals.

I don't recognise any of your points at all. It was the most heavily regulated industry I have ever worked in and each of my colleagues took great care in the planning stages to ensure that all work performed used the minimum number of animals, for the shortest time possible with good laboratory practice and excellent animal husbandry at the top of our lists of requirements. Indeed, if we did not meet the strictest requirements, we would not be granted a licence to carry out the procedures.

I do not need to research the Internet to "discover" these practices, as I am more likely to dig up unrepresentative rubbish designed to mislead people like you into thinking people like me willingly inflict pain and suffering on the animals in our care. This is quite simply untrue.

I wouldn't expect you to believe me and that is your choice. However, I do speak from a position of much experience inside that industry.

Let's not also forget that it isn't just humans who benefit from our research - veterinary drugs for animals are also tested on other animals, so our pets and our farm livestock also benefit.

I am very happy for the tests to continue and we all strive to reduce testing in our industry by the use of in vitro testing and computer modelling. Sadly, our self-obsessed health and safety culture will always demand animal testing, and while it doesm, I will be willing to do it. To your untrained eye it may seem barbaric, but until you have been personally involved then your argument has no substance.

B, what has that got to do with Proctor and Gamble putting soap into animals eyes.

We can make soap and washing up liquid these days surely, without this unecessary testing.

stop getting so worked up, they are only rabbits and mice its not like they are boiling babies.

never seen 'babe'?
my sister became a vego after seeing that film. she was 4, and was not able to make a rational decision, due to the emotive slant of the story and her immature critical faculties.

a wrote:
B, what has that got to do with Proctor and Gamble putting soap into animals eyes. We can make soap and washing up liquid these days surely, without this unecessary testing.

It's a statement for balance. To ensure that the positive side of testing is put forward. This, sadly, is very necessary as most of the anti-testers are very emotional and cannot see that one incident in isolation does not condemn the whole industry in the same way.

The Draize test (as we call it) was revised in the 80s and is very much in decline now, even overseas, partly due to public pressure, but mainly due to its variability.

The Draize test is very rarely used for cosmetic components anywhere now, but is still used for topical pharmaceuticals. The test article is also applied to skin to test for irritation - not always eyes.

It's too apparent that anti-testing groups rely on rehashing protocols from the 70s which have quite rightly been dropped entirely or replaced with much less intrusive methods of testing.

Broderick wrote:
never seen 'babe'? my sister became a vego after seeing that film. she was 4, and was not able to make a rational decision, due to the emotive slant of the story and her immature critical faculties.

I too am considering becoming a veggie.
But got some nice pork chops for dinner tonight so maybe tomorrow?

Bless you. The spirit of compassion and understanding is moving over the dark waters of the animal vivisection mantality. Thank you :) XXX

I have to admit I haven't been able to avoid laughing at some of the views on here. The pro-animal testing people are just so rabid about it, putting down (or trying to anyway) any opposing view. The houshold and personal products I use are non-animal tested. I have beautiful hair, fabulous smooth skin and my make-up products are as gentle as they're helpful in making me look good. I don't need animal testing to survive or to look, feel or smell delicious. I certainly won't buy P&G products and I totally support Paul in his campaigns. At last, an honest politician, what I wouldn't give for one of those in my area.

Sue Henderson wrote:
I have to admit I haven't been able to avoid laughing at some of the views on here. The pro-animal testing people are just so rabid about it, putting down (or trying to anyway) any opposing view. The houshold and personal products I use are non-animal tested. I have beautiful hair, fabulous smooth skin and my make-up products are as gentle as they're helpful in making me look good. I don't need animal testing to survive or to look, feel or smell delicious. I certainly won't buy P&G products and I totally support Paul in his campaigns. At last, an honest politician, what I wouldn't give for one of those in my area.

Good for you Sue.

I can't say I feel rabid about it and nor do I see my thoughts as putting down anti-testing groups.

Long may your hair shine and your health be good. If you do need any drug treatment at any time, please accept that it has most probably at some time been tested on animals. Also, be aware that even though your finished cosmetic product might not have been tested on animals, some of the constituent components could well have been.

Opposing a view is not the same as putting it down. There are valid arguments on both sides, but high emotion clouds the issues on both sides.

Celia Clarke wrote:
I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Absolutely indeed - please read the facts here

http://www.curedisease.net/

Europeans for Medical Progress Trust is a registered charity (number 1039411). We focus on rigorous scientific analysis of animal experimentation to assess the balance of help or harm to human health. We seek to educate the public, scientists, the media and the Government about the sophisticated biomedical research techniques that enable genuinely fruitful study of human biology.

And for me personally - I will go out of my way to ensure that I am doing all within my power to live a cruelty free life - It is time we knocked BAD SCIENCE on the head !

I oppose all animal testing and other forms of abuse so that puts me clearly among the animal activists and I am proud of that! The whole business, which is what it is - a huge moneymaking machine - is horrifically cruel and also senseless! The tests prove nothing apart from how evil and cruel humans are and how greedy manufacturers and scientists can be!
And after all the testing we still have MOST food, toiletries, cosmetics, and other products including poisons in their ingredients and they are officially approved!

David G wrote:
Well I honestly have been using P&G for many years and will certainly continue to do so. Their products tend to be competitively priced and are in my experience effective. No militant bunny-huggers are going to take my choices away, and frankly I'd rather they tested this stuff on rabbits and mice rather than humans. Doesn't anyone remember that human testing ****-up a while back? Viva P&G, don't let the morons take away your choices.

My brother is the result of animal testing gone wrong - :( speak to him - my mother about this - and there are thousands more out there just like him !

And the people you refer to now ? The drugs were tested on animals first, that was a huge part of the uproar SCIENCE GONE BAD YET AGAIN - do you not hear all the news or just those parts you wish to hear in order to justify in your mind - buying inexpensive products at such a high cost, and a cost of not only animal life but eventually human life too :( !

Steve Andrews wrote:
I oppose all animal testing and other forms of abuse so that puts me clearly among the animal activists and I am proud of that! The whole business, which is what it is - a huge moneymaking machine - is horrifically cruel and also senseless! The tests prove nothing apart from how evil and cruel humans are and how greedy manufacturers and scientists can be! And after all the testing we still have MOST food, toiletries, cosmetics, and other products including poisons in their ingredients and they are officially approved!

I wouldn't even think for a minute that any pharmaceutical company actually *wants* to do animal testing. It is so vastly expensive. In fact, they would rather do no testing at all - that way they could really maximise their profits.

To say that a manufacturing business would spend money voluntarily on any non-production or sales area is quite frankly absurd.

Mary Alice wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Absolutely indeed - please read the facts here http://www.curedisease.net/ Europeans for Medical Progress Trust is a registered charity (number 1039411). We focus on rigorous scientific analysis of animal experimentation to assess the balance of help or harm to human health. We seek to educate the public, scientists, the media and the Government about the sophisticated biomedical research techniques that enable genuinely fruitful study of human biology. And for me personally - I will go out of my way to ensure that I am doing all within my power to live a cruelty free life - It is time we knocked BAD SCIENCE on the head !

You will find that the vastly overwhelming majority of testing scientists actively seek to reduce the dependance on testing.

Of course, you could try to counter that argument by saying that they would be talking themselves out of a job, but you would be wrong.

What better way to bring about change than to understand the science properly from the inside and to effect difference in that way. I wager that my attempts to seek alternatives from the inside have more effect than yours, primarily because I can see bad science for what it is, and so can many other scientists in the business.

If that were not the case, animal testing would have exploded out of all proportion. In fact, much of the bad science from the 1940s onwards has been eradicated. For that you should thank the scientists involved.

Who are worth saving more, animals or humans? That's the crux of the argument.

Yes, it's awful that animals are tested on but if your son or daughter had their life spared directly because of a drug that was successfully tested on animals, you may change your mind.

It's a bit like a vegetarian being in a plane crash and there's nothing to eat but juicy steaks.

Quite simply, eat or die. Live or die.

Hi B,

I'm already deep in mortal combat in another post-fest somewhere on here on the fois gras thread. I'm staunchly in the opposite camp to you, but if there's any way we could, I'd really like to talk to you off the record, via email or on the P.M. function on the main forum of this website maybe?

I would (sincerely) value hearing from the other side of the coin from someone who's directly involved in something I abhor (on the evidence I have) especially as you seem to be a reasonable type.

I'm no Animal Rights extremist trying to get you to disclose info or anything, I have no desire to meet you or know any personal details, it's just that, how ever much I pontificate, I have to concede that I am an 'untrained eye'. Communication in this particular environment is difficult and I really would like to take this opportunity to understand more.

I am absolutely dismayed and heartsick that a company that I have invested in for many years is actually using animals to test products!
As a shareholder and a lover of all animals I I certainly will do my best to join others to
try and change this. Someone tell me what they believe I and my other family members can do.

quote

quote

Before you jump to conclusions, take a look at the other side of the story:
http://www.pg.com/science/animal_alt.jhtml

I thought I was going to be putting something really controversial here but I see someone else has (albeit possibly a bit tongue in cheek) already put what I was going to suggest which was that instead of animal testing - which I abhor the thought of, although I realise that perhaps it may possibly be necessary (I am wavering a bit about this because animals and humans are NOT the same and so results that look promising when drugs are tested on animals may not show the same results when used for humans) for testing of drugs, I feel strongly that VIOLENT criminals should help to pay their debt to society by having these things tested on them instead. After all they have chosen to break the law, animals have no choice when they are subjected to horrific testing.

In the UK deaths from ADRs being the 4th biggest killer , elicited the following statement in the British Medical Journal: “the complexity and reach of modern medicines have come to represent new levels of harm to patients?? More people in Great Britain die from adverse reactions to medical drugs each year, than are killed on the roads”. (BMJ 15 April 02.)

After a project using over 18'000 mice , Teropterin was used to treat acute childhood leukaemia ; but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated.

Of 22 drugs shown to have been therapeutic in spinal cord injury in animals, not one is effective in humans.
Of 20 compounds known not to cause cancer in humans, 19 do cause cancer in rodents.

Former director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Richard Klausner lamented: "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans."

1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.

2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.

3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.

4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977. This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.

5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.

6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.

7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.

8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.

9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.

10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.
11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days. Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.

12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.

13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.

14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.

15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.

16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.

17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.

18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.

21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants. And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.

22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.

24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.

27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen. Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.

28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS effects in any species'.

29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently

37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.

38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.

39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.

42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier.

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals. Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful. In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood. However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.

46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats.

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result.

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans.

One of our most relied-upon pain relievers, Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid), causes teratogenic malformations in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys.

Cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, alcohol and glass fibres are all safe to ingest, according to animal studies.

Multiple Sclerosis ,in February2004 a report published in the New Scientist stated that scientists admited animal experiments delayed medical progress with research into MS, Researchers studying human brain tissue from MS sufferers discovered that animal experiments had led to false theories about MS.

A report in the Telegraph paper on 12/5/06 said about Adverse Drug Reactions - " Tens of thousands of patients are suffering adverse reactions to drugs with at least 250,000 needing to be admitted to hospital every year at a cost to the NHS of nearly £500MILLION. Serious reactions can kill or cause respiratory failure or heart attacks. Lesser reactions can cause rashes, muscle pain and dizziness and many other symptoms.But doctors are notoriously bad at reporting such problems, often because they feel that minor reactions are so well known there is no need to do so. Others are so rarely seen by individual doctors that they do not make the link.Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science at the BMA, said yesterday that only about 10 per cent of adverse reactions are reported, according to research."

Most recenlty there was the TGN1412 monoclonal antibody trial disaster , and reports show that the animals, including monkeys and rabbbits, were given doses up to 500times stronger than that given to the humans!

I could continue with more examples!!!!!!!!!

No surprises.
It is always the same story. I have nowt against vegans, veggies or the animal rights crowd. What I've got a problem with are the sheltered, ignorant, brainwashed few that post on sites like this.

There was a similar uproar about foie gras, and most of the protestors didn't know what they're talking about. Most hunt protesters have never been near a hunt; most anti-animal testing people have never seen the objective facts. It's tiedious to let these shallow few spout their brainwashed propaganda.

Conversely it's refreshing to read the view of someone who has clearly had first-hand experience of the tests. Thank you 'B'. I think you're the be all and end all of this particular argument.

Animal Free wrote:
In the UK deaths from ADRs being the 4th biggest killer , elicited the following statement in the British Medical Journal: “the complexity and reach of modern medicines have come to represent new levels of harm to patients?? More people in Great Britain die from adverse reactions to medical drugs each year, than are killed on the roads”. (BMJ 15 April 02.) After a project using over 18'000 mice , Teropterin was used to treat acute childhood leukaemia ; but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated. Of 22 drugs shown to have been therapeutic in spinal cord injury in animals, not one is effective in humans. Of 20 compounds known not to cause cancer in humans, 19 do cause cancer in rodents. Former director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Richard Klausner lamented: "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." 1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice. 2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer. 3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic. 4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977. This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals. 5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals. 6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended. 7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security. 8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke. 9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims. 10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface. 11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days. Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation. 12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released. 13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function. 14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics. 16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects. These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. 17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths. 18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans. 19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring. 20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting. 21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants. And yet it had worked well in woodchucks. 22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans. 23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals. 24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems. 25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more. 26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals. 27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen. Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals. 28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS effects in any species'. 29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials. 30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure. 31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose. 33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect. 34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect. 35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to. 36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently 37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this. 38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant. 39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals. 40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities. 41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result. 42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier. 43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals. Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful. In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans. 44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood. However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock. 45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'. 46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats. 47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result. 48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened. 49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them. 50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans. One of our most relied-upon pain relievers, Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid), causes teratogenic malformations in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys. Cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, alcohol and glass fibres are all safe to ingest, according to animal studies. Multiple Sclerosis ,in February2004 a report published in the New Scientist stated that scientists admited animal experiments delayed medical progress with research into MS, Researchers studying human brain tissue from MS sufferers discovered that animal experiments had led to false theories about MS. A report in the Telegraph paper on 12/5/06 said about Adverse Drug Reactions - " Tens of thousands of patients are suffering adverse reactions to drugs with at least 250,000 needing to be admitted to hospital every year at a cost to the NHS of nearly £500MILLION. Serious reactions can kill or cause respiratory failure or heart attacks. Lesser reactions can cause rashes, muscle pain and dizziness and many other symptoms.But doctors are notoriously bad at reporting such problems, often because they feel that minor reactions are so well known there is no need to do so. Others are so rarely seen by individual doctors that they do not make the link.Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science at the BMA, said yesterday that only about 10 per cent of adverse reactions are reported, according to research." Most recenlty there was the TGN1412 monoclonal antibody trial disaster , and reports show that the animals, including monkeys and rabbbits, were given doses up to 500times stronger than that given to the humans! I could continue with more examples!!!!!!!!!

My gosh, a lot of examples of animal testing gone wrong.

That is quite worrying.

My gosh, a lot of examples of animal testing gone wrong.

That is quite worrying.

LMAO
Look PETA, look Viva! Another prime target for brainwashing!
That's right 'Oh my', and it's ALL TRUE.. that's right, it's ALL TRUE. Come and be a better person with us. Inflict your views on others quickly, and send us the money for your membership pack.
Spot on.

I could continue with more examples!!!!!!!!!

oh look my cut and paste works too.

So scientists get it wrong sometimes, thats the nature of science, research and discovery.

Celia Clarke wrote:
I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this "information"? It's the anti-testing people. So it's bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it's biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

B wrote:

a wrote:
B, what has that got to do with Proctor and Gamble putting soap into animals eyes. We can make soap and washing up liquid these days surely, without this unecessary testing.

It\'s a statement for balance. To ensure that the positive side of testing is put forward. This, sadly, is very necessary as most of the anti-testers are very emotional and cannot see that one incident in isolation does not condemn the whole industry in the same way.

The Draize test (as we call it) was revised in the 80s and is very much in decline now, even overseas, partly due to public pressure, but mainly due to its variability.

The Draize test is very rarely used for cosmetic components anywhere now, but is still used for topical pharmaceuticals. The test article is also applied to skin to test for irritation - not always eyes.

It\'s too apparent that anti-testing groups rely on rehashing protocols from the 70s which have quite rightly been dropped entirely or replaced with much less intrusive methods of testing.

B,
please, I'm serious , let me know how I can get in touch. I agree that much of what 'we' know is clouded and possibly outdated. I need to talk to someone who is reasonable and has knowledge that I can't get from anywhere else.

p.m. me here:
http://forum.yorkpress.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1118#1118

If this campaign prevents one person from buying proctor and gamble products then it is well worth while. I have boycotted P and G for years due to their horrific tests so we can wash our clothes or clean our bathroom. I used Astonish on my bathroom the other day and it came up lovely, without animal or the environment being harmed, which is another important issue to consider when one tests on animals.

However anyone can sleep at night when they are justifying animal torture on cosmetic or cleaning products is beyond belief to me. Call me a bunny hugger or whatever you like, at lease I have a conscience and I take a look in the mirror every day to see how I can improve the loves of others, not just my own. I am no do gooder but don't care if you say I am, I am just caring and considerate to every being. this includes animals AND humans.

To go back to the report, one thing troubles me. Why are P and G being targeted specifically? Is there evidence somewhere that they are performing (or paying for a contract research organisation) to test substances overseas in a way which is not allowed under UK legislation? If not, then they are playing on the same field as the rest of the UK's cosmetics and household chemicals industries. So, why the focus on P and G?

Anyway, prior to entering the contract research industry, I worked as a development scientist for a cosmetics company in Leeds. The company itself did no testing on animals of any kind on either its finished products or its raw materials, nor did it pay anyone else to do so. However, the raw materials we used had been tested, often many years before, on animals, as is required by law. Our focus was to use what was already available, but in differing formulations in order to produce more effective products for market to gain a commercial edge over our competitors (P and G being one of those). This kind of activity reduces costs and the use of test animals.

Likewise, in the testing industry, many of us would start life in the animal side of testing, but move on to alternatives. I followed that route, spending much time in human metabolism - the stage of human testing undertaken after the initial animal phases were over.

My next move was to in vitro testing - researching new methods of testing which missed out the animal phase and moved straigh onto human volunteers. It is a route many of us strive to make. I can say that to work at the sharp end, to design studies, to work with clients and to work with the Home Office (who license the work) as well as the FDA in the US and the regular inspections by vets and quality assurance professionals, as well as the animals, gives one a deep desire to seek alternatives. To work with the animals is fine - to care for them (perverse as that may seem) and to handle them gives you a real insight into the need to seek a different way. Believe me when I say not one of us would inflict suffering on those animals, and at the first sign of suffering, the protocols demand that testing is suspended. Only a maniac enjoys hurting other animals and nobody I ever worked with would stand by and watch a study proceed if suffering was involved. Indeed, if they did they would be dismissed and prosecuted. The few idiots who do sneak into jobs in the industry and for whatever reason are not as professional are very quickly rooted out.

So, to summise, the industry may not be to many peoples' tastes, but it is from within that change can come. Much as the oil industry needs to seek alternatives to that dwindling resource to stay in business, so the animal testing industry is best placed to fund alternatives to animals. In strict business terms, animals are expensive to house, feed, and care for. The business would be far more efficient if in vitro methods of testing were used. To this end, the business seeks to maximise its use of these methods, and this, combined with constantly evolving guidance from government bodies is ever seeking to reduce animal experimentation.

The genie was released from the bottle, but we are trying to get it back in. Not quick enough for some, but as quick as is reasonably practicable.

I don't call anyone a bunny hugger - I feel what you feel for those animals, but I also feel for the people whose lives have been saved or improved, and their families, by using the pharmaceuticals I have played a small part in helping to develop.

Allie wrote:
No surprises. It is always the same story. I have nowt against vegans, veggies or the animal rights crowd. What I've got a problem with are the sheltered, ignorant, brainwashed few that post on sites like this. There was a similar uproar about foie gras, and most of the protestors didn't know what they're talking about. Most hunt protesters have never been near a hunt; most anti-animal testing people have never seen the objective facts. It's tiedious to let these shallow few spout their brainwashed propaganda. Conversely it's refreshing to read the view of someone who has clearly had first-hand experience of the tests. Thank you 'B'. I think you're the be all and end all of this particular argument.

:o) thank you Allie.

I hope I have given an insight into what goes on in some small way and why people like me do it (or did - I no longer work in that industry). The people who do this work are not monsters and are trying to achieve the same as the anti-testing folk, albeit we are moving to the same point from different directions.

We came from a past where animal testing wasn't necessary, and we can move to a future where the same is true. We just can't do it immediately - give it time and focus and it will happen.

I see the usual nasty comments are being used against those wishing to lead a good and caring life and as always those who wish to end cruelty are taking the brunt of it. I know who I'd prefer to associate with, give me animal friendly people every time, I mostly buy from the co-op where many products are compassionate!

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
Professor Charles Magel

This is a subject that nobody ever agrees on, I say do what you feel best and what you can personally live with. I want to live a cruelty free life and I try my best to do that. Empathy is the key word, imagine yourself as the animal in the cage, how would you feel?

Some very thought provoking comments on here. I will boycott P and G products and will use the Astonish brand. It seems they do not make animals suffer while testing their products.

While experiments on animals can be defended - IF there is no alternative, it is important to remember that the biological make-up of animals, birds, etc, is very different to ours.
So even if testing a chemical gives an ok result, it cannot be automatically assumed it's ok for humans as well.

Its all very well saying you
should boycott P&G's products,
but do you have any idea how
many companies they own? It
would take millions of people
worldwide to stop buying there
products before it made a
difference. A couple of
campainers in York just aint
gonna do it I'm sad to say.

late to the debate wrote:
I see the usual nasty comments are being used against those wishing to lead a good and caring life and as always those who wish to end cruelty are taking the brunt of it. I know who I\'d prefer to associate with, give me animal friendly people every time, I mostly buy from the co-op where many products are compassionate! \"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: \'Because the animals are like us.\' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: \'Because the animals are not like us.\' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.\" Professor Charles Magel

The quotation from Professor
Charles Magel doesn't make
sense. It requires the
reader
to look at animals and humans
in a polarised way. It
negates the fact that there
are parallels and
similarities
and instead flattens the
argument to a simplistic
black
and white view.

Yes, animals are similar in
many ways, which is why we
test on them in controlled
ways. Also, no, they are
much
different from humans in a
social sense. This is not a
contradiction. Only in a
make-believe world where we
encourage people to view
animals as having human
characteristics, such as the
ability to speak English or
to
sit in front of log fires in
cosy cottages by the river
bank would this argument hold
water.

The question posed and the
answer proffered are also
fallacies in that if you were
to pose those questions to a
scientist involved in this
area, those are not the
answers you would receive.
They are merely words pushed
into the sentence by Prof
Magel to enhance his argument.

some breathtaking arrogance on this thread. to be honest, i wasnt even aware of which products were P+G but now I will definitely make an effort to buy MORE.
I think its highly unfair that brain-washed morons can tarnish a respectable brand that is NO WORSE than any other. I'm moving over to crest toothpaste as of tomorrow, and I'm going to try and find their brand of washing up liquid.
Promise. That's me sticking up for efficient companies.
And all thanks to you muppets.

some breathtaking arrogance on this thread. to be honest, i wasnt even aware of which products were P+G but now I will definitely make an effort to buy MORE.
I think its highly unfair that brain-washed morons can tarnish a respectable brand that is NO WORSE than any other. I'm moving over to crest toothpaste as of tomorrow, and I'm going to try and find their brand of washing up liquid.
Promise. That's me sticking up for efficient companies.
And all thanks to you muppets.

Posted by: B, york on 10:23am today

"Yes, animals are similar in
many ways, which is why we
test on them in controlled
ways. Also, no, they are
much different from humans in a social sense. This is not a
contradiction. Only in a
make-believe world where we
encourage people to view
animals as having human
characteristics, such as the
ability to speak English or
to
sit in front of log fires in
cosy cottages by the river
bank would this argument hold
water."

I don't think it's a matter of anyone realistically thinking that animals are 'socially' the same as humans. Yes they undoubtably interact socially, but in their own ways - I can't remember the last time I ran up to someone and sniffed their arse (without having to pay!).

I think the point is very obviously that it's not make believe that all creatures (again, in their own way) are the same in that they can feel pain, fear, stress, anxiety etc. and to some extent and in some cases, these reactions are what testers need to guage to formulate results.

I'd still really like to communicate further if you can find your way over to the main forum - or atleast let me know that you don't want to ;) then I'll shut up about it!!

I presume all you guys who are so anti-testing will also be refusing life-saving drugs if you ever need them as they've been tested on animals? I am not for animal testing but I am not completely against it either as I realise that in order to gain knowledge that we need to progress and heal it is sometimes necessary. I cant wait for all you animal protesters to protest against Battery farms as i dont think you'll find any objections from anyone and maybe that could be something we could do something about rather then all these small and controversial campaigns?
BTW i agree it would be much better to test these things on violent criminals though somehow i can't see it being approved...

The Veganvillage website list companies which sell cruelty free toiletries, cosmetics & household products; many having no animal ingredients.


In 2003 an activist broke into a testing laboratory in Hampshire and removed files detailing extensive poisoning programmes using tens of thousands of animals to test botox, a cosmetic product. So much for the UK ban.

L'OREAL (who took over the Body Shop)has now got approval in Europe to replace
animal testing with tests done on engineered human tissue. Unfortunately, sluggish regulatory agencies and the lack of funding into non animal replacements hamper progress.
Similarly re drug development.because of the need for better tools for accurate prediction, improved medicine and treatments, companies like Asterand and Eceleron provide human tissues and services for the pharma industry.

Ironically, many of the chemicals and substances marketed via 'safety' tests on animals do end up harming humans animals and the environment, which in turn generates more demand for drugs and therapies.

You say activist I say terrorist. What ever term you use they engaged in criminal acts and thankfully more and more these days are being dealt with as such.

Mark R wrote:
some breathtaking arrogance on this thread. to be honest, i wasnt even aware of which products were P+G but now I will definitely make an effort to buy MORE.
I think its highly unfair that brain-washed morons can tarnish a respectable brand that is NO WORSE than any other. I\'m moving over to crest toothpaste as of tomorrow, and I\'m going to try and find their brand of washing up liquid.
Promise. That\'s me sticking up for efficient companies.
And all thanks to you muppets.

brainwashed? us?

There is a massive, powerful marketing industry that all companies use, (especially corporate giants like P&G) that is set up solely to affect your thought and guide your choice towards their product. They're even very effective convincing you that you need something (like ANOTHER version of the same toothpaste, or ANOTHER version of the same washing up liquid) when you don't. Marketing is SO effective at 'brainwashing' that these companies constantly spend billions on their services in order to sell you (basically) the same thing again and again.

And why would they do that if it didn’t work? Isn’t that just bad business? and you can’t accuse them of being bad business people.

I think it’s fair to say you’re the one blissfully and ignorantly having your cash taken off you by corporates and their marketeers in exchange for stuff you’ve already got and we’re the ones actually trying to seek out something better!.

I can’t reliably argue with the moron bit, but brainwashed? while you’re brushing your teeth, look in the mirror.

Dear Governor Patrick:

We can understand the enthusiasm that greets your bioscience industry
initiative. Unfortunately, it will be the horrific suffering of animals in our commonwealth's laboratories that will make resulting economic prosperity and your political success possible.

These animals' situation is not unlike that experienced by black men, women and children who had no choice but to be slaves to create the financial and economic wealth of privileged folk. It was their heartbreaking sacrifice and work that brought about an economic revolution in the U.S. The animals also have no choice. They have no voice and only their suffering to so painfully and unwillingly offer.
The animals suffering in labs are no different from our pets and beloved animal companions.

Plus, animal use is not even really good science. In 2006, both Mike Leavitt, Secretary of HHS and Andrew von Eschenbach, MD, Acting Commissioner of the FDA, publicly questioned the use of animal studies in drug research. Eschenbach stated, "Consider just one stark statistic: Today, nine out of 10 compounds developed in the lab fail in human studies. They fail, in large part because they behave differently in people than they did in animal or laboratory tests." Leavitt added, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” The implications for human health are staggering: a 1998 JAMA article estimated the human death toll from drugs “proven safe” on animals to be over 100,000 people a year in the US alone. Vioxx, Celebrex, and Fen-Phen are notable examples. Changing to non-animal based science is doable. In the case of animal product testing, for example, the EU has just approved non-animal testing alternatives, and we ask MA to be at the forefront of our country and do the same.

Given the extreme animal suffering and highly questionable benefits of vivisection, we respectfully ask you to instead support and join those of us who work on the behalf of the animals and promote the use of non-exploitive, modern, and more effective scientific methods.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights.
That is the way of a whole
human being."

Sincerely,

Steve and Helen Rayshick and family

emma wrote:
I presume all you guys who are so anti-testing will also be refusing life-saving drugs if you ever need them as they\'ve been tested on animals? I am not for animal testing but I am not completely against it either as I realise that in order to gain knowledge that we need to progress and heal it is sometimes necessary. I cant wait for all you animal protesters to protest against Battery farms as i dont think you\'ll find any objections from anyone and maybe that could be something we could do something about rather then all these small and controversial campaigns?
BTW i agree it would be much better to test these things on violent criminals though somehow i can\'t see it being approved...

Emma, this isn't a million miles away from a sensible comment ;)

if it came to it, I wouldn't refuse life saving drugs on the basis that they were tested on animals. Before I get to that life or death situation though I'd like to try and encourage the powers that be to develop the alternatives ;)

I agree Tony but i dont think they really need encouragement. It seems most places are doing what they can to use other means of testing wherever they can and developing new ways of testing, however sometimes it is not possible to use other means and animal testing is necessary - it may seem cruel or barbaric to some people and i do agree but if its a choice between a sick child and an animal...

BTW, if any animal had to make the choice about whether your child lived or theirs i think you know what they would choose - its survival instinct and like it or not it is built into us just as it is with every other animal

P&G don't brainwash, they advertise along with all their competitors. They appeal to evidence that we can all discover for ourselves - whether the product works, whether it's cheap etc.
The activist propaganda however DOES brainwash, because it appeals to facts that we cannot prove, provided by people whose opinions are heavily biased and who are likely to use the most extreme examples available. Such people are dependent that we cannot verify that their claims hold true on a universal scale, so it takes a lot of faith. The easiest way to get faith for unsupported data is by brainwashing.
Sorry guys, I'm sure your hearts are in the right places, but you've been sucked in.

who is governor patrick? how bizarre

MD wrote:
Its all very well saying you should boycott P&G's products, but do you have any idea how many companies they own? It would take millions of people worldwide to stop buying there products before it made a difference. A couple of campainers in York just aint gonna do it I'm sad to say.

Exactly! And if everyone bought compassionate products the 'business' of commercial cruelty would end!

Exactly Maria. And if we found accurate ways to test products without harming bunnies, and if we found a miracle cure for cancer and greed, and if we all threw away our weapons, and if no one in the world was ever hungry again, and if we all lived in harmony and skipped through life holding hands, NONE of this would be a problem. You've got my vote love.

Maria,
You are right of course, but do you really think the millions of consumers out there are going to spend their precious time looking at labels on 20 different products they put in their shopping trolleys? That's just the lazy way mankind is. Shops however are not going to set up a special aisle for products not tested on animals - they're out to make profit and that comes from selling the top brands, many of whom are owned by...P&G

just as information and faith is biased on one side so it is on the other, those against choose the worst case, those for choose the best case, that's why it's so hard to get un-biased information from either side

The corporates' advertising and marketing is all over every percievable media from the moment you wake up til the moment you go to sleep. I work in advertising so I hope it has some effect otherwise I'm out of a job!! If we can't call that brainwashing, can we call it 'persuasion'? either way it's a hefty dose of bias on one side.

When Thalidomide was being peddled to GP's, I'm sure there wasn't much in the marketing along the lines of, "...oh. there may be a slight side effect". Advertising never has and never will (if it can get away with it) waste any time giving an 'unbiased' overview of all it's products properties and effects. It'll choose the one that will motivate you to hand over the cash.

Maybe I've not been paying attention, but I've yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn't the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can't have been that effective, because even I can't remember them!!

MD wrote:
Maria,
You are right of course, but do you really think the millions of consumers out there are going to spend their precious time looking at labels on 20 different products they put in their shopping trolleys? That\'s just the lazy way mankind is. Shops however are not going to set up a special aisle for products not tested on animals - they\'re out to make profit and that comes from selling the top brands, many of whom are owned by...P&G

re-wind a few million years....

"do you really think people can be bothered to shave the corners off their square wheels? nah caveman-kind is just lazy, it'll never catch on"

Tony wrote:

MD wrote: Maria,
You are right of course, but do you really think the millions of
consumers out there are going to spend their precious time looking at
labels on 20 different products they put in their shopping trolleys?
That\'s just the lazy way mankind is. Shops however are not going to
set up a special aisle for products not tested on animals - they\'re
out to make profit and that comes from selling the top brands, many of
whom are owned by...P&G

re-wind a few million years....
"do you really think people can be bothered to shave the corners off
their square wheels? nah caveman-kind is just lazy, it'll never catch
on"

cuckoo...
hello, do you really think we have progressed so far as to have become a do-gooder utopia? Cavemen didn't have wheels anyway square or otherwise, or can you prove different?

Maybe I've not been paying attention, but I've yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn't the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can't have been that effective, because even I can't remember them!!

On a minor note, please don't confuse vivisection with drug testing. Vivisection means to cut open whilst alive (and often without anaesthetic) and is quite abhorrent.

It's an emotive word which has been hijacked to cover all animal experimentation, but in this way it is misapplied.

progressed? unfortunately not. Utopia's not a bad aim though

square wheels? ooh aren't we captain pedantic. or would you like me to explain my point a little s l o w e r

Theres no need to be like that Tony. If you don't agree with what I say, do you have to use a dorogitory remark? just say you don't agree

tio wrote:

Maybe I\'ve not been paying attention, but I\'ve yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn\'t the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can\'t have been that effective, because even I can\'t remember them!!

On a minor note, please don\'t confuse vivisection with drug testing. Vivisection means to cut open whilst alive (and often without anaesthetic) and is quite abhorrent.

It\'s an emotive word which has been hijacked to cover all animal experimentation, but in this way it is misapplied.

agreed, apologies, I was on a roll ;)

MD wrote:
Theres no need to be like that Tony. If you don't agree with what I say, do you have to use a dorogitory remark? just say you don't agree

I found your comment to be so laughably defeatist so as to not warrant a serious answer. Just saying it as I see it.

of course I don’t agree that humankind is so pitifully luddite

All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!!
There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don't know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Lynne Thrower wrote:
All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!! There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don't know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Fine - vets use drugs which are tested on animals, as do doctors. What's the difference Lynne?

I know plenty about it and I do not have a vested interest, other than the health of other human beings. However, I suppose you mean a financial interest?

See The absurdity of vivisection website for information on medical failures. Where do you think animal rights are getting their information from? they are not just making it up you know. Its coming from very reliable sources including the pharmaceuticals and medical publications as well. Insiders are leaking info too. A survey of Drs revealed 82% did not trust results from animals in medical testing. Testing TGN1412 conclusively confirmed this. They have not been able to reproduce human cancer in mice after 40-50 odd years. It's time for more relevant and better methods. We are not the same as animals. By the way do any of you pro read papers and watch documentaries?

so lynne would you refuse treatment for a life threatening illness for you or your family simply because the drug was tested on animals?

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote: All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!! There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don\'t know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Fine - vets use drugs which are tested on animals, as do doctors. What\'s the difference Lynne? I know plenty about it and I do not have a vested interest, other than the health of other human beings. However, I suppose you mean a financial interest?

Let me explain... I am saying that animals are different to us and that the way an animal reacts to a drug is different. If anyone trusts results from an animal you must consider yourself the same hence me suggesting seeing a vet.

do any of you pro read papers and watch documentaries?

Hate to point out the obvious here but this is a PAPER website so that pretty much answers half of your question!!!

I am surprised I have got to answer that. Clearly, I know of loads of organisations in the event of anything like that who could help. I have not had drugs from the Dr for years. I find medical herbalists loads better and causes no harm to animals and its also better than taking dodgy drugs.
Did you really think that I would take drugs when I oppose animal testing due to it being unethical and due to all the serious side effects and fatalities? I thought that would be obvious.

j wrote:
do any of you pro read papers and watch documentaries? Hate to point out the obvious here but this is a PAPER website so that pretty much answers half of your question!!!

Blimey thats dumb!

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote: All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!! There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don\'t know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Fine - vets use drugs which are tested on animals, as do doctors. What\'s the difference Lynne? I know plenty about it and I do not have a vested interest, other than the health of other human beings. However, I suppose you mean a financial interest?

I have just reread your post and saying "other than the health of human beings' just ignores all the facts of the many thousands of medical failures, serious side effects and fatalities worldwide. And shows that in fact you do not know plenty about it.

Louise wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this \"information\"? It\'s the anti-testing people. So it\'s bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it\'s biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

Don't you realise that animal rights is not just made up of the general public but professionals from the industry as well?
Oh and in reply to the 'researcher' if the animals are treated well (would you like to be in a cage 24/7) why did we see footage of 'researchers' exposed on a channel 4 documentary punching 4mth old puppies then? Nonsense, theres masses of evidence and footage of cruelty. There are leaked documents and all sorts of proof. Some workers went to a animal organisation last year because they were so disgusted by what they saw. Stop trying to fool people.

eukanuba and iams also belong to proctor and gamble,they are ALL THE PITS--------do not buy ANY of P/G products at all.

Yes, Procter and Gamble really do suck and all the other companies that inflict pain and suffering on any other living being. Hundreds of companies develop quality products without ramming a tube down a dogs throat daily making them violently ill, without inflicting massive burns to dogs through applying substances to their shaved backs regularly, without blinding rabbits etc... If it happened outside of a lab these people would be put in prison. Animals cannot defend themselves and that is not a reason to exploit them. I think those that do display characteristics of cowards and bullies. Well done Paul Blanchard for standing up for animals. They deserve it and you have my admiration. I believe that the reason some companies do tests is because they use harmful substances that we would be better off avoiding anyway. Its best to buy natural products, nature knows best.

Tony wrote:
just as information and faith is biased on one side so it is on the other, those against choose the worst case, those for choose the best case, that\'s why it\'s so hard to get un-biased information from either side The corporates\' advertising and marketing is all over every percievable media from the moment you wake up til the moment you go to sleep. I work in advertising so I hope it has some effect otherwise I\'m out of a job!! If we can\'t call that brainwashing, can we call it \'persuasion\'? either way it\'s a hefty dose of bias on one side. When Thalidomide was being peddled to GP\'s, I\'m sure there wasn\'t much in the marketing along the lines of, \"...oh. there may be a slight side effect\". Advertising never has and never will (if it can get away with it) waste any time giving an \'unbiased\' overview of all it\'s products properties and effects. It\'ll choose the one that will motivate you to hand over the cash. Maybe I\'ve not been paying attention, but I\'ve yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn\'t the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can\'t have been that effective, because even I can\'t remember them!!

yes, you are right to a point, but anti vivisectionists are made up from both sides. Ex-vivisectors,
emminent professors, Doctors who have admitted that they once blindly trusted and believed that testing on animals could be applied to humans are now saying that they have discovered otherwise from thier direct involvement. I wouldn't think you would see a a billboard poster or other because the powerful industry are doing everything in their power to prevent it.

Jan wrote:

Tony wrote:
just as information and faith is biased on one side so it is on the other, those against choose the worst case, those for choose the best case, that\'s why it\'s so hard to get un-biased information from either side The corporates\' advertising and marketing is all over every percievable media from the moment you wake up til the moment you go to sleep. I work in advertising so I hope it has some effect otherwise I\'m out of a job!! If we can\'t call that brainwashing, can we call it \'persuasion\'? either way it\'s a hefty dose of bias on one side. When Thalidomide was being peddled to GP\'s, I\'m sure there wasn\'t much in the marketing along the lines of, \"...oh. there may be a slight side effect\". Advertising never has and never will (if it can get away with it) waste any time giving an \'unbiased\' overview of all it\'s products properties and effects. It\'ll choose the one that will motivate you to hand over the cash. Maybe I\'ve not been paying attention, but I\'ve yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn\'t the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can\'t have been that effective, because even I can\'t remember them!!

yes, you are right to a point, but anti vivisectionists are made up from both sides. Ex-vivisectors,
emminent professors, Doctors who have admitted that they once blindly trusted and believed that testing on animals could be applied to humans are now saying that they have discovered otherwise from thier direct involvement. I wouldn't think you would see a a billboard poster or other because the powerful industry are doing everything in their power to prevent it.

exactly, it's totally in the business people's interests (I'm not necessarily including the scientists here, as to a certain extent, they're puppets like the rest of us) to keep any opposition quiet, divided and un-informed, and do what they can to brand us cranks, thugs or terrorists

Lynne Thrower wrote:
See The absurdity of vivisection website for information on medical failures. Where do you think animal rights are getting their information from? they are not just making it up you know. Its coming from very reliable sources including the pharmaceuticals and medical publications as well. Insiders are leaking info too. A survey of Drs revealed 82% did not trust results from animals in medical testing. Testing TGN1412 conclusively confirmed this. They have not been able to reproduce human cancer in mice after 40-50 odd years. It's time for more relevant and better methods. We are not the same as animals. By the way do any of you pro read papers and watch documentaries?

Lynne - I am (or more correctly was) an insider. If you read my previous posts, you would know that.

A survey of rats recently found that 93% did not trust doctors. Flippant comment maybe, but I do not trust off-the-cuff stats like your doctor one above.

Your cancer statement is misleading. Carcinogenic studies on new materials often cause cancer, but the test species is more commonly the SD rat, not the mouse.

I agree methods need to change, but in more measured way.

Lynne Thrower wrote:

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote: All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!! There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don\'t know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Fine - vets use drugs which are tested on animals, as do doctors. What\'s the difference Lynne? I know plenty about it and I do not have a vested interest, other than the health of other human beings. However, I suppose you mean a financial interest?

I have just reread your post and saying "other than the health of human beings' just ignores all the facts of the many thousands of medical failures, serious side effects and fatalities worldwide. And shows that in fact you do not know plenty about it.

Sorry Lynne, I do. I have worked on a number of successful therapies which have gone to market and have improved the lives of countless thousands of humans. Not on my own of course, but as a part of a team of hundreds of people. I do know plenty Lynne, and about the failures too, in much more detail than you could ever comprehend, hence my desire to find alternatives in the long run.

Lynne Thrower wrote:

Louise wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this \"information\"? It\'s the anti-testing people. So it\'s bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it\'s biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

Don't you realise that animal rights is not just made up of the general public but professionals from the industry as well? Oh and in reply to the 'researcher' if the animals are treated well (would you like to be in a cage 24/7) why did we see footage of 'researchers' exposed on a channel 4 documentary punching 4mth old puppies then? Nonsense, theres masses of evidence and footage of cruelty. There are leaked documents and all sorts of proof. Some workers went to a animal organisation last year because they were so disgusted by what they saw. Stop trying to fool people.

Yes - it does happen and I have witnessed it myself, as I have also witnessed the culprits being arrested and escorted off-site, not to return.

You will find, if you were in the situation of being able to see for yourself from the inside, that the number of people who behave in such a way as you describe is vanishingly small. That kind of reporting doesn't make for good television though, does it?

My rats were, I can assure you, treated very well indeed, as were the rest of the animals I came into contact with.

Tony wrote:

Jan wrote:

Tony wrote: just as information and faith is biased on one side so it is on the other, those against choose the worst case, those for choose the best case, that\'s why it\'s so hard to get un-biased information from either side The corporates\' advertising and marketing is all over every percievable media from the moment you wake up til the moment you go to sleep. I work in advertising so I hope it has some effect otherwise I\'m out of a job!! If we can\'t call that brainwashing, can we call it \'persuasion\'? either way it\'s a hefty dose of bias on one side. When Thalidomide was being peddled to GP\'s, I\'m sure there wasn\'t much in the marketing along the lines of, \"...oh. there may be a slight side effect\". Advertising never has and never will (if it can get away with it) waste any time giving an \'unbiased\' overview of all it\'s products properties and effects. It\'ll choose the one that will motivate you to hand over the cash. Maybe I\'ve not been paying attention, but I\'ve yet to see one TV campaign or billboard poster trying to convince me that vivisection isn\'t the best idea in the world. If there have been any, they can\'t have been that effective, because even I can\'t remember them!!

yes, you are right to a point, but anti vivisectionists are made up from both sides. Ex-vivisectors, emminent professors, Doctors who have admitted that they once blindly trusted and believed that testing on animals could be applied to humans are now saying that they have discovered otherwise from thier direct involvement. I wouldn't think you would see a a billboard poster or other because the powerful industry are doing everything in their power to prevent it.

exactly, it's totally in the business people's interests (I'm not necessarily including the scientists here, as to a certain extent, they're puppets like the rest of us) to keep any opposition quiet, divided and un-informed, and do what they can to brand us cranks, thugs or terrorists

Yes - there are certainly very powerful inerests involved here. The power lies well away from the researchers and also away from their direct employers, the contract research organisations. The power lies with the clients - huge pharmaceuticals companies on the whole who do apply pressure in all manner of ways, but I really can't say more about that here.

Cranks, thugs and terrorists is a poor epithet to apply to everyone, but the people I used to meet as I left work, or the ones I was warned about as I checked my post at home, did fit that mould very well.

It is sad that the most vociferous and destructive minority are those who stick in the minds of people, but that is the nature of their methods, whilst the polite and concerned majority struggle to come out from behind their shadow.

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote: See The absurdity of vivisection website for information on medical failures. Where do you think animal rights are getting their information from? they are not just making it up you know. Its coming from very reliable sources including the pharmaceuticals and medical publications as well. Insiders are leaking info too. A survey of Drs revealed 82% did not trust results from animals in medical testing. Testing TGN1412 conclusively confirmed this. They have not been able to reproduce human cancer in mice after 40-50 odd years. It\'s time for more relevant and better methods. We are not the same as animals. By the way do any of you pro read papers and watch documentaries?

Lynne - I am (or more correctly was) an insider. If you read my previous posts, you would know that. A survey of rats recently found that 93% did not trust doctors. Flippant comment maybe, but I do not trust off-the-cuff stats like your doctor one above. Your cancer statement is misleading. Carcinogenic studies on new materials often cause cancer, but the test species is more commonly the SD rat, not the mouse. I agree methods need to change, but in more measured way.

Insiders always only mention rats or mice because they know that the biggest majority of people don't really relate to them. They never talk about the dogs and cats that they imprison and experiment on because they know that people do relate to them. Why is the industry so secretive about what they do? Why are the labs in windowless and soundproofed buildings? Insider or not if you have faith in animal testing I believe you are misguided. How can you ignore the facts of all the failures and side effects regularly being reported? You are behind your counterparts that are waking up to this reality. Cancer has not been reproduced in an animal, mouse or rat, does it really matter what animal? what matters is that human cancer has not been successfully reproduced in all these years. I agree change is necessary and the sooner the better.

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote:

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote: All of you that support animal testing next time you are ill go and see a vet!! There are two kinds of people who support animal testing those that don\\\'t know enough anout it and those with a vested interest.

Fine - vets use drugs which are tested on animals, as do doctors. What\\\'s the difference Lynne? I know plenty about it and I do not have a vested interest, other than the health of other human beings. However, I suppose you mean a financial interest?

I have just reread your post and saying \"other than the health of human beings\' just ignores all the facts of the many thousands of medical failures, serious side effects and fatalities worldwide. And shows that in fact you do not know plenty about it.

Sorry Lynne, I do. I have worked on a number of successful therapies which have gone to market and have improved the lives of countless thousands of humans. Not on my own of course, but as a part of a team of hundreds of people. I do know plenty Lynne, and about the failures too, in much more detail than you could ever comprehend, hence my desire to find alternatives in the long run.

much more details than I could ever comprehend, What do you know about my comprehension? That was very personal and insulting and it sounds like projection to me. I'm glad to hear that you recognise that better and more reliable alternatives are necessary though. I think that too and actually I am pleased that I have learnt that for myself and I am not and would never be an insider. Just a person who has done a whole lot of research on the subject. Some times we hear of successes that have helped thousands of people only to discover years later that they have long term adverse effects too. You must know that? Insiders can become desensitised to animals suffering as well, which is very sad.

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote:

Louise wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this \\\"information\\\"? It\\\'s the anti-testing people. So it\\\'s bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it\\\'s biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

Don\'t you realise that animal rights is not just made up of the general public but professionals from the industry as well? Oh and in reply to the \'researcher\' if the animals are treated well (would you like to be in a cage 24/7) why did we see footage of \'researchers\' exposed on a channel 4 documentary punching 4mth old puppies then? Nonsense, theres masses of evidence and footage of cruelty. There are leaked documents and all sorts of proof. Some workers went to a animal organisation last year because they were so disgusted by what they saw. Stop trying to fool people.

Yes - it does happen and I have witnessed it myself, as I have also witnessed the culprits being arrested and escorted off-site, not to return. You will find, if you were in the situation of being able to see for yourself from the inside, that the number of people who behave in such a way as you describe is vanishingly small. That kind of reporting doesn\'t make for good television though, does it? My rats were, I can assure you, treated very well indeed, as were the rest of the animals I came into contact with.

Just the fact that animals are imprisoned in cages 24/7 is cruel in itself. To quote, albeit not the 'exact' words "It can no longer be said that cruelty in labs are isolated incidents because every single time an establishment is entered either by the front or back door cruelty can be seen". You're assuming that I haven't seen inside labs, and I have and breeding facilities as well. There is also an element of common sense about it you know. Once again an insider only mentioning rats and I would imagine that the rats would prefer to be somewhere else and not having experiments done on them,or being given cancer etc, would't you?

Anyway, this is about the cruelty that Procter and Gamble inflict on defenceless animals and I am pleased to say that I have no part in it.
I avoid all animal tested products and animal ingredients as well. (Don't really fancy smearing animal fat on my face from soap) Its not hard to avoid animal tested products and I find them better products anyway, there are cruelty free guides to help you and you soon learn which companies are ethical. Many major supermarkets avoid animal testing with their own brand products. Co-op state the animal ingredients as well and I am pleased to say Asda have started to state vegetarian on more toiletries now. Go for it it opens up a whole new world of great products, believe me.

The reason I have seen inside labs and a breeding facility is because there is so very very much footage taken by brave undercover workers. I know you will say its not the same but the cruelty keeps being repeated and the people in the background when the puppies were being punched in the face and thrown about did not appear shocked at all by what they saw and things like that speak volumes. In fact the woman holding the puppy was actually laughing. It made it look pretty common place to me. In Germany a lab had to have cameras installed because of repeated cruelty being exposed. A lab took Peta to court to stop them from showing footage and the judge ruled against them after viewing the evidence. There's masses of evidence, I mean really.

LOL Lynne. No offence love but you've really been sucked in haven't you. I bet the folks at PETA are rubbing their hands, lmao.

Regarding the advertising point made by someone - of course advertising is there to persuade you.
The difference is, you can take the product home and test it. You CANNOT test or prove the theories pushed down your throat by activists, or check that they're true for all cases - hence it's brainwashing - instilling a false faith in unverifiable facts.

PS Lynne - I hope you realise that the last time PETA went to caught was not to challenge any lab - but rather to try and defend THEMSELVES against allegations of animal cruelty. ( www.petakillsanimals
.com )

Tomorrow is Global Boycott P&G Day

Dr Dan Lyons, on the Uncaged Campaigns website gives background information which explains the image used on this year's materials, which shows a procedure called 'retro-orbital bleeding'. This shows how extreme P&G are in their animal cruelty:

Retro-orbital bleeding as a method of blood collection. The method can be described as follows: The animal (usually a rodent) is restrained, the neck compressed and the eye made to bulge. A glass capillary tube is pushed past the eyeball. Anaesthesia is not always used. The UK National Centre for the 3Rs states that it is “a technique that can have severe consequences for the animal and, therefore, it is not recommended for use with recovery.”
The potential for complications from retro-orbital bleeding is moderate to high, and complications include inflammation, cataract, haematoma, excessive pressure on the eye, corneal ulceration, keratitis, penetration/rupture of the eyeball, damage to the optic nerve, and fracture of the bones of the eye socket. There can be forward protrusion of the eyeball, caused by continuous bleeding, which leads to a gradual drying out and a constant itching of the cornea, as eyelids are not able to close properly. The animal may then blind itself by scratching its cornea.

The method can cause prolonged high noradrenaline levels, which are indicative of stress and are likely to be due to pain, discomfort and/or fear. Animal welfare bodies recommend banning this method, and even some vivisectors reportedly find it disturbing. The aforementioned Nuffield report states: “Sometimes more invasive and potentially painful techniques such as tail-tip amputation, or occasionally retro-orbital bleeding (taking blood from behind the eye) are used. The latter method is usually carried out under general anaesthetic, but if complications such as blood clots occur, the animal is likely to be in pain once it has regained consciousness.”

The details in the papers of the vivisectors themselves, though often couched in sanitised language are all the evidence needed re what goes on behing closed doors.

It's thanks to activists and undercover investigations that laws have been enacted in an attempt to protect animals. God knows what they'd do if left to their own devices. They do enough experimenting on humans as it is if they think they can get away with it. Humans are always the first guinea pigs anyway , as underscored by the Northwick Park trials. Safe and effective medicines result from clinical trials and proplonged usage in populations.
The researchers themselves and provivisectionists should volunteer (unpaid) for the clinical trials. The rest of us have no choice but to take part in the game of Russian roulette when seriously ill.

Those concerned, please ask your MP to sign EDM 92 in support of an independent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety & testing and medical research- which closes in November.

But you are wrong there. I just had a word with the big guy upstairs and this is what he says….

And God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it; you are the masters of the fish and birds and all the animals". Genesis 1:28

This quote is often used to justify cruelty to animals.

Where is the permission to mistreat animals? Being a master implies power but not the right to abuse it.

Jesus told us that God is aware of even the smallest sparrow that falls to the ground. This implies that all creation is valued by God and should be respected by us.

People like B try to sound plausible, but logic and compassion means that there must be a sadistic streak (however subconscious) in any scientist who willingly inflicts pain on an animal.

If the experiments are oh so well controled and then that is only due to the campaigning of animal welfare campaigners, not the good nature of the scientists, who hide behind the cloak of secrecy and anonymity.

As far as Proctor and Gamble are concerned, I do not need a boffin in a lab coat to tell me that soap stings if you get it in your eyes. Such cruelty cannot be justified.

I will most definatly be boycotting P&G.

Well said Matt the Cat,
People wanting to know more about how you can help and for moer information generally about Procter & Gamble see -
http://www.boycottpa

ndg.co.uk/index.asp

And for those who don't care, imagine it wa your pet being used in these tests, how would that make you feel.If you don't have a pet now, maybe you had one as a child,just imagine.

Wow more copy'n'paste propaganda.
Haha Matt, I KNEW you wouldn't like hearing from someone that has had first-hand experience. It directly challenges the lies you've been brainwashed with!! ROFL.

WELL DONE B for speaking some truth at last!!

Good grief. If you'd researched for just 2 minutes you'd realise that P&G are one of the few companies to commit to ENDING animal testing within a specified time limit. Boycotting them is SUPPORTING the continued existence of such tests. You people are sick, and ignorant.

http://www.pg.com/sc

ience/animal_alt.jht

ml

And now think about what companies like PETA actually do. Are they really the caring, soulful folk they claim to be? Or are they corporate money-grabbing hypocrites like those they're attacking?
http://www.thisistru

e.com/peta.html
http://www.petakills

animals.com

You call yourselves animal-lovers?
Hah.

Christoff wrote:
LOL Lynne. No offence love but you've really been sucked in haven't you. I bet the folks at PETA are rubbing their hands, lmao.

Regarding the advertising point made by someone - of course advertising is there to persuade you.
The difference is, you can take the product home and test it. You CANNOT test or prove the theories pushed down your throat by activists, or check that they're true for all cases - hence it's brainwashing - instilling a false faith in unverifiable facts.

if you think you along with, unfortunately, the vast majority of the world, at least those who just want a quiet, convenient life free from the 'hassle' of simply having to think twice about what they buy aren't being affected by the marketing strategies of corporates, then you are welcome to your blissful stupor.

On the other hand, you have to actively go out of your way to seek out information about anti vivisection/testing if you're inspired to do so. How is that being brainwashed?

It's hardly on every wall, TV screen, in every cinema or falling through your letter box is it? but advertising and marketing IS. Information or influence about animal welfare is easily ignorable by the vast majority of people, unless they decide to go and find it.

Yes the info you do manage to find on the 'anti' side is biased, maybe (maybe) because the testing industry is so afraid to open it's doors because of what their consumers may see, that the only information available from inside is collected by people so concerned that they will sometimes even risk imprisonment to expose abuse! From a people and sources that committed, when the information sees the light of day, it's hardly liable to be unbiased.

Unless you're happy to turn the other cheek and accept what the industry PR people would have you believe, you must wonder why everything on their side is so shrouded in secrecy.

Matt the Cat wrote:
People like B try to sound plausible, but logic and compassion means that there must be a sadistic streak (however subconscious) in any scientist who willingly inflicts pain on an animal. If the experiments are oh so well controled and then that is only due to the campaigning of animal welfare campaigners, not the good nature of the scientists, who hide behind the cloak of secrecy and anonymity. As far as Proctor and Gamble are concerned, I do not need a boffin in a lab coat to tell me that soap stings if you get it in your eyes. Such cruelty cannot be justified. I will most definatly be boycotting P&G.

No - there's no sadistic streak in me at all. What a pointless accusation to make. Also, as I have said in many posts before, neither I nor my colleagues inflicted pain on the animals. I believe I mentioned that studies were suspended should an animal show signs of distress.

The cloak of secrecy is in order that fringe elements do not disrupt the work or try to attack the workers. Sadly necessary I'm afraid.

I think you misunderstand the use of the Draize test by simplifying it to the level of a "soap stinging the eyes" comment.

More from Lynne

Some times we hear of successes that have helped thousands of people only to discover years later that they have long term adverse effects too. You must know that? Insiders can become desensitised to animals suffering as well, which is very sad.

I think you have just reinforced why we test - to look for long term issues with new therapies. I'm sure you are sharp enough to realise that this is about risk reduction, not risk elimination.

Most researchers move on to look for ways out of using animals after a relatively short period of time - hence they don't become desensitised.

Thanks Benson.

To be truthful, I was agreeing with the anti-PG comments. I checked out those websites and your right, Proctor and Gamble actually do more to end animal testing than most companies I've already boycotted.
Thanks a load for showing the other side of the story. Looks like the rest of the people havent checked their facts!

A bit more from Lynne

Insiders always only mention rats or mice because they know that the biggest majority of people don't really relate to them. They never talk about the dogs and cats that they imprison and experiment on because they know that people do relate to them. Why is the industry so secretive about what they do? Why are the labs in windowless and soundproofed buildings? Insider or not if you have faith in animal testing I believe you are misguided.

Yes, I mention rats because I was predominantly involved in rodent toxicology. I didn't work with other animals and have little experience of them, but to give you the list you are looking for Lynne, CROs use mice, rats, dogs, cats, sheep, pigs, goats, cows, guinea pigs, monkeys, and possibly others I have not seen. As far as I am concerned a rat is as valuable a creature as a dog. I do personally dislike cats, but that is only because they dig up my garden and I have never tested on cats!

I do have faith in animal teting, but if you slowed down long enough to read my previous posts you would realise that I quickly moved on, as did many of my colleagues, to look into in vitro testing.

I think you know why the research is carried out behind closed doors - privacy from those seeking to disrupt the research in a particularly destructive way. That's not the way forward Lynne - a measured approach is required.

For anybody who believes we still have animal testing in this the 21st centuary simple for the benifits of people ,can not be more wrong. Even Alexander Flemming himself all those years ago said it is pointless. On the Animal Aid website,they have a video called WASTED LIVES which can be found using their search box. Then go and watch Earthlings on google.
Animal testing kills people too,but governments and the pharmacuetical industry do not care, becuase they profit hugely from it depsite the fact it kills.
And before any of you people onhere try and say to me I dont know what I am talking about, well I do, I have seen inside the labs, I have seen the people affected by animal tested drugs and the devastating affects it has on them and their families.
For more info on non animal testing methods of curing , jsut look on Dr Hadwen Trust or Human Research, or European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, or Europeans For Medical Progress, they all explain the FACTS.

I was agreeing with the anti-PG comments.

Lisa, IF p&g are looking for alternatives, then is precisely because of the campaign against animal tests - proving the value of such campaigns.

B - you say that you moved on from animal testing to vitro - well done.

Most scientists that are still involved in animal testing and vivisection have to hide away at work in secrecy - perhaps ashamed of what they are doing.

If everything was so hunky-dory as they say, then why all the secrecy? why not let the public see what happens experiments - the reason why is most likely that they feel guilty and fear being shunned by their neighbours.

for the record I'm using phrases like 'open doors' as metaphors. I'm not actually suggesting they physically unlock their doors and let people in

IF p&g are looking for alternatives, then is precisely because of the campaign against animal tests - proving the value of such campaigns.

Well they are committed, it's official. Secondly, what's the point of boycotting the frontrunners in ending animal testing unless you want them to go back to it?

Most scientists that are still involved in animal testing and vivisection have to hide away at work in secrecy - perhaps ashamed of what they are doing.

Perhaps. Or more likely, they are concerned about the hoards of braindead, cowardly, hypocritical terrorists that would happily kidnap kids, dig up your dead granny, or threaten your life because of the job you do.

Christoff wrote:
LOL Lynne. No offence love but you\'ve really been sucked in haven\'t you. I bet the folks at PETA are rubbing their hands, lmao. Regarding the advertising point made by someone - of course advertising is there to persuade you. The difference is, you can take the product home and test it. You CANNOT test or prove the theories pushed down your throat by activists, or check that they\'re true for all cases - hence it\'s brainwashing - instilling a false faith in unverifiable facts.

Yes I have been sucked in by concrete evidence!

you have no concrete evidence Lynne you have no experience in this matter at all and are simply spuoting things you have read off animal activists websites - by the way to say you have been in these places because you saw a documentary on tv about them is absolutely hilarious!!

Lisa wrote:

IF p&g are looking for alternatives, then is precisely because of the campaign against animal tests - proving the value of such campaigns.

Well they are committed, it\'s official. Secondly, what\'s the point of boycotting the frontrunners in ending animal testing unless you want them to go back to it?

Most scientists that are still involved in animal testing and vivisection have to hide away at work in secrecy - perhaps ashamed of what they are doing.

Perhaps. Or more likely, they are concerned about the hoards of braindead, cowardly, hypocritical terrorists that would happily kidnap kids, dig up your dead granny, or threaten your life because of the job you do.

P & G committed? They are already years behind. A massive company with loads of money to find alternatives, they should have been leaders. Even supermarkets have banned animal testing before them. There has been secrecy in the vivisection industry from the very beginning and animal rights groups could not be blamed then!

Benson wrote:
Wow more copy\\\'n\\\'paste propaganda. Haha Matt, I KNEW you wouldn\\\'t like hearing from someone that has had first-hand experience. It directly challenges the lies you\\\'ve been brainwashed with!! ROFL. WELL DONE B for speaking some truth at last!!

It's not brainwashed when you go out of your way to find the information. And there is also people with first hand experience saying the opposite. so whats so funny?

Lynne, you're showing your ignorance. P&G are not 'years behind' other companies. If you checked your facts you'd see that actually they were the second company to join the american humane association, that is actively trying to end animal testing. Most corporate pharmaceutical companies wouldn't dream about signing it.
And re. the brainwashing - you haven't gone out of your way to find it. You've had it shoved down your neck when you've visited websites - hardly out of your way. And yes, a select few with first hand experience do oppose it. So how do you transfer their experiences onto all testing? I'll tell you - by believing the generalisations and hype of the looney activists in the first place.

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote:

Louise wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this \\\"information\\\"? It\\\'s the anti-testing people. So it\\\'s bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it\\\'s biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

Don\'t you realise that animal rights is not just made up of the general public but professionals from the industry as well? Oh and in reply to the \'researcher\' if the animals are treated well (would you like to be in a cage 24/7) why did we see footage of \'researchers\' exposed on a channel 4 documentary punching 4mth old puppies then? Nonsense, theres masses of evidence and footage of cruelty. There are leaked documents and all sorts of proof. Some workers went to a animal organisation last year because they were so disgusted by what they saw. Stop trying to fool people.

Yes - it does happen and I have witnessed it myself, as I have also witnessed the culprits being arrested and escorted off-site, not to return. You will find, if you were in the situation of being able to see for yourself from the inside, that the number of people who behave in such a way as you describe is vanishingly small. That kind of reporting doesn\'t make for good television though, does it? My rats were, I can assure you, treated very well indeed, as were the rest of the animals I came into contact with.

I don't believe it is vanishingly small as you would like us to believe, because there is too much evidence and footage. You can't argue with that. Incidentally, have you been in the situation of being able to see for yourself from inside every lab in the country then? I've probably seen more than you because I have gone out of my way to watch footage and programmes. Actually, I think it is surprising that anything ever reaches the television at all. Did you kill your rats? what did you do to them? How many experiments did you conduct on each one?

Lynne wrote:

B wrote:

Lynne Thrower wrote:

Louise wrote:

Celia Clarke wrote: I humbly suggest that before anyone, who is pro animal testing for cosmetics and household products, makes any remarks about whether or not they are in favour of animal testing, actually takes the trouble to do a bit of research on the internet and see EXACTLY what is done by the animal testers to the animals and how it results in extreme pain and terror over long periods for the animals concerned. Only then will they be qualified to make the remark that they are happy for these barbaric tests to remain in place so that they can use, for example, a new shampoo.

Right. And who exactly posts this \\\\\\\"information\\\\\\\"? It\\\\\\\'s the anti-testing people. So it\\\\\\\'s bound to be biased. If the actual researchers posted information of what they do then I would take more notice of things like that on the internet. But as it is it\\\\\\\'s biased information and hardly unsurprising so many people are taken in by it.

Don\\\'t you realise that animal rights is not just made up of the general public but professionals from the industry as well? Oh and in reply to the \\\'researcher\\\' if the animals are treated well (would you like to be in a cage 24/7) why did we see footage of \\\'researchers\\\' exposed on a channel 4 documentary punching 4mth old puppies then? Nonsense, theres masses of evidence and footage of cruelty. There are leaked documents and all sorts of proof. Some workers went to a animal organisation last year because they were so disgusted by what they saw. Stop trying to fool people.

Yes - it does happen and I have witnessed it myself, as I have also witnessed the culprits being arrested and escorted off-site, not to return. You will find, if you were in the situation of being able to see for yourself from the inside, that the number of people who behave in such a way as you describe is vanishingly small. That kind of reporting doesn\\\'t make for good television though, does it? My rats were, I can assure you, treated very well indeed, as were the rest of the animals I came into contact with.

I don\'t believe it is vanishingly small as you would like us to believe, because there is too much evidence and footage. You can\'t argue with that. Incidentally, have you been in the situation of being able to see for yourself from inside every lab in the country then? I\'ve probably seen more than you because I have gone out of my way to watch footage and programmes. Actually, I think it is surprising that anything ever reaches the television at all. Did you kill your rats? what did you do to them? How many experiments did you conduct on each one?

Doesn't matter, you don't have to answer those questions. Just stop telling they were treated very well indeed. They were in a lab for goodness sake!

Just stop telling *me

Lisa wrote:
Lynne, you\'re showing your ignorance. P&G are not \'years behind\' other companies. If you checked your facts you\'d see that actually they were the second company to join the american humane association, that is actively trying to end animal testing. Most corporate pharmaceutical companies wouldn\'t dream about signing it. And re. the brainwashing - you haven\'t gone out of your way to find it. You\'ve had it shoved down your neck when you\'ve visited websites - hardly out of your way. And yes, a select few with first hand experience do oppose it. So how do you transfer their experiences onto all testing? I\'ll tell you - by believing the generalisations and hype of the looney activists in the first place.

How do you work that out? Of course they are behind. They still test on animals when hundreds of companies don't. So much for joining AHS (Or is it HSUS?) And did you know that on their advisory board are ex- vivisectors? so I am not ignorant at all. I have written and received replies from P & G on a number of occasions as well. Have you? You've assumed that I have got my info solely from websites. Of course I haven't. There's many ways than that to access accurate information. YOu know what, I am getting a bit fed up of having to spell things out on here.

emma wrote:
you have no concrete evidence Lynne you have no experience in this matter at all and are simply spuoting things you have read off animal activists websites - by the way to say you have been in these places because you saw a documentary on tv about them is absolutely hilarious!!

There is loads of concrete evidence. You just aren't aware of it. Here we go again with the assumptions that I have got info solely from websites and a single tv programme. Yawn..

Lisa wrote:
Lynne, you\'re showing your ignorance. P&G are not \'years behind\' other companies. If you checked your facts you\'d see that actually they were the second company to join the american humane association, that is actively trying to end animal testing. Most corporate pharmaceutical companies wouldn\'t dream about signing it. And re. the brainwashing - you haven\'t gone out of your way to find it. You\'ve had it shoved down your neck when you\'ve visited websites - hardly out of your way. And yes, a select few with first hand experience do oppose it. So how do you transfer their experiences onto all testing? I\'ll tell you - by believing the generalisations and hype of the looney activists in the first place.

You didn't respond about the secrecy in labs in the very begining Lisa.

Lisa wrote:
Thanks Benson. To be truthful, I was agreeing with the anti-PG comments. I checked out those websites and your right, Proctor and Gamble actually do more to end animal testing than most companies I\'ve already boycotted. Thanks a load for showing the other side of the story. Looks like the rest of the people havent checked their facts!

What an obvious con....

Does anyone else find this message board not very user friendly what with all the quotes turning into massive collumns of 1 word lines & stuff

I have a cunning plan, why don't we continue it on the main forum? it's a much handier layout

anybody?

B wrote:
More from Lynne

Some times we hear of successes that have helped thousands of people only to discover years later that they have long term adverse effects too. You must know that? Insiders can become desensitised to animals suffering as well, which is very sad.

I think you have just reinforced why we test - to look for long term issues with new therapies. I\'m sure you are sharp enough to realise that this is about risk reduction, not risk elimination. Most researchers move on to look for ways out of using animals after a relatively short period of time - hence they don\'t become desensitised.

What I meant was, long term serious side effects have not been predicted either because of the unreliability of animal test results. That cries out for more reliable non-animal testing. Experts, Emminent Professors, Ex-vivisectors, and Doctors etc are stating that animals react totally different to us and they state that they have recognised that from their observations and the long history of failures. Do you think they might know more about it than you B? As for desensitisation that doesn't take long at all to happen, think about it, all the animals will struggle whilst 'scientists' (I don't regard testing on animals as science). are trying to do something to them they are going to get irritated with it aren't they? (the ones on the video got very annoyed, shouting and screaming in the dogs face and being violent to it) It is not about the individual animal either so moving around won't help. It is about what is done to the animals and how it consequently can very soon make the 'researcher' regard them as mere tools. Animals can be totally restrained in contraptions rendering them helpless. It's heartbreaking to see and we have no right to do it. It's not good science but unfortunately it can be very ingrained in some insiders and make them unable to see it.

Does anyone else find this message board not very user friendly what with all the quotes turning into massive collumns of 1 word lines & stuff

I have a cunning plan, why don't we continue it on the main forum? it's a much handier layout

anybody?

Good idea Tony, are you going to start a thread on the main forum or shall I ?

Lynne said:

What an obvious con....

Yes Lynne, you are right - in fact P&G have been saying this for the last 20 years. They are always 'looking into alternatives' but still the tests go on.

Don't fall for P&G's marketing hype people.

Other companies have stopped using animal tests and the only way P&G will change is if people hit them where it huits - their profits.

Boycott P&G until they say that they have actually stopped using animal tests.

OK people I think I've got it.

Lynne is a well-meaning idiot, entrenched in her belief system, where no amount of first-hand experience can change her mind. She has decided her views make her a moral, more caring person, and therefore will not change them for anything or anyone. Quote me on that.

B is an insider with enough relevant information to form a coherent argument, though lacks the faith, passion and blind conviction of Lynne.

Can we go to bed now?

Wait on Benson,

Lynne seems to be a well informed individual who has taken the time to find out the facts instead of just listening to the marketing men.

B has said that he has abandoned animal tests because of the cruelty and has now moved on to 'in vitro' experiments - good move.

Scientists repeatedly commit horrendus acts of cruelty and torture on animals, in the name of "testing" and then go crying to the police when the public find out about it.

Most animal experiments are done by academics, just because it is an easy way to get large amounts of data - data that is irrelevant to human health, but justifys the scientists grants and salaries.

When the companies begin research into human health using alternative methods then we will begin to see big advances in human health as well as lower taxes - taxpayers subsidise alot of these experiments and associted security costs.

Why all the secrecy, why are scientists so ashamed of what they are doing?? If their lab tests are all okay then why do the testers not let the public see the experiments ????

Perhaps they are ashamed and frightened of being exposed for what they do, worried about their neighbours might think if they knew what they did for a living.

I have never broken the law and I do not intend to incite others to break the law.

Scientists have broken many animal welfare laws and get away with it every day.

Thank you for that Matt the Cat.. You are right, Benson, I have been looking into it for years and I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I am not easily influenced and I do my own thinking.

Matt, absolutely, you hit the nail on the head. We're all actually against animal testing, and we all believe your copy-n-paste hype.

Absolutely Lynne, you're a free-thinking individual with a wealth of experience, and wisdom beyond your years. Nothing could ever prove you wrong.
I can't fault either of you. You're morally untouchable, a paradigm of virtuous humanity, I humble my flesh-eating, animal-torturing self in front of you.

May you save the lives of many meek animals and continue to be consumed by sensationalist hype.

God be with you my friends.

Bravo to everyone that takes the time to read labels and buy compassionate products, this is a never ending argument that doesn't do the animals any good and doesn't change anything. You may as well talk to a brick wall as to try to find a happy medium between those that care and those that don't, I really think it's as simple as that, each to his own way of life. I wouldn't wish a laboratory cage existence on any living creature, so, yes I take a few extra minutes when I shop and hope by not buying products tested on animals that I am making a difference (a second's glance at the bottom of a label will tell you whether it is or isn't, it's not that hard to find!) And however small my contribution to ending suffering may be I am doing something to make my voice and choice heard. It's the only thing that works, if you want to end it don't spend money on it, money talks unfortunately.

Matt the Cat said:

B has said that he has abandoned animal tests because of the cruelty and has now moved on to 'in vitro' experiments - good move.

No I didn't. You have inferred that. I moved on to in vitro for a number of reasons. I wanted to help find a better scientific process with a better quality of results. This is not possible with animal testing as it is becoming static in its diversity of protocols. All scientists endeavour to move their research forwards rather than sticking in the mud.

My personal feelings for the animals had little influence there. I've tried to keep my emotions out of the argument as they can cloud the issues I believe we need to take on to effect change.

Lynne wrote:
Thank you for that Matt the Cat.. You are right, Benson, I have been looking into it for years and I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I am not easily influenced and I do my own thinking.

Change can only happen if you are open to the influence of the points of view of others.

Bravo to everyone that isn't swallowed up by this sensationalist bumf, and who make up their own minds. It's so easy nowadays to camp on the moral highground just because you think you buy 'compassionate products'. It's a nice, conveniant way to pretend you're caring. So yes, well done to everyone that has heard the hype and can still make up their own minds - they don't and 2 and 2 and make 22, and crucially they are open to the views of the majority with first-hand experience.
Viva freedom of choice.

B wrote:

Lynne wrote: Thank you for that Matt the Cat.. You are right, Benson, I have been looking into it for years and I get my information from a wide variety of sources. I am not easily influenced and I do my own thinking.

Change can only happen if you are open to the influence of the points of view of others.

Let me explain: when a person says they are not easily influenced they generally mean that they do not blindly accept the opinons of others without checking it out thoroughly first. Thats just basic common sense isn't it? Of course I am open to influence(you have the wrong meaning of what I said, you seem to do that a lot actually) otherwise I would not have looked into animal testing and I would have just accepted what we are told to believe. Can't you tell from that that I am open minded? Once again it is a projection of your own personality onto me, You showed that you are mindset when you didn't even check out the information about the survey of doctors that I mentioned, You dismissed it straight away and didn't even ask me where you could go to find out about it or anything. (To prove or disprove), But I did, I checked out the colon cancer sites like J suggested. You have not directly answered my valid and logical points from some of my postings. I can see exactly what you are trying to do on here, you don't fool me for one second but remember you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, hence the information about the futility of animal testing coming out more every day. y the way, are you in favour of a Royal Commission into the validity of vivisection? Anyway, I shall not respond again to comments regarding my personality and my integrity or the playground derogatory comments because this is not about me its about the suffering of animals in unnecessary P & G product testing.

I feel that a lot of responses are derogatory and are just attempts to discredit each other on here when as adults we should be able to discuss it properly and even though we may not agree, insults should never come into it. I am sorry that my last post wasn't very nice but I have already had to ignore a lot of nonsense aimed at me and unfortunately I reacted a bit. That is why I will not respond to them any more. Yes Maria you are so right!

It is sad that so many people appear to think that torturing rabbits (they're ONLY rabbits) doesn't matter. All animals feel pain and anxiety and misery, just the same as humans can, and those who think otherwise are profoundly ignorant and very stupid. I suppose there is an argument, though not one I would subscribe to, that testing medicines on animals is justifiable. But testing cleaning products on animals? Testing cosmetics? Just so some one can pour a bleach down the lavatory or give themselves a face mask, is quite without reason and very inhumane.
No wonder the world is in such a state, no one appears to give two hoots about the suffering and pain of any other creatures, human or otherwise.
Not a nice species, the humans.

Just thought I would post part of a recent email.. Cosmetics giant Loreal has gotten approval in Europe to replace
animal testing with tests done on engineered human tissue.
The process--the L'Oréal Episkin model, administered by a subsidiary
called SkinEthic--uses a human epidermis reconstructed on collagen and
is available to the entire cosmetic industry. It is a great step
towards the elimination of animal use," enabling "the replacement of
animal tests for skin-irritancy of 10,000 substances.
full story:
http://publications.
mediapost.com/index.
cfm?fuseaction=Artic
les.showArticleH
omePage&art_aid=6004
0
If Loreal can do this, hopefully
P & G will move forward and discontinue their archaic methods of testing. It's years overdue.


'the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%'

Well done Paul. It takes a brave person to speak out, and an even braver politician!! I believe you're right in what you stand for, and it feels so good to have a person in the public eye standing up for the animals. Thankyou!

EVERYONE!!!! go to

http://forum.yorkpre

ss.co.uk/viewtopic.p

hp?p=1130#1130

This is carrying on over there thanks to Matt The Cat.

Jimbob wrote:
When the Chinese stop making bears ride bicycles on tight-ropes, I'll stop buying shampoo.

Infantile post.

C wrote:
Actually, I notice that the pro-animal welfare comments on this page are moderate and reasonable. I can't say the same about those who seem to advocate mistreating animals.

Exactly what I was thinking *shakes head*

What do you think B? Is a Royal Commission necessary? and what is your opinion on Proctor and Gamble testing their poducts on animals. Do you approve or disapprove?

Too much sounding off - pro animal research people don't know what they are talking about - and you don't believe the animal rights people so perhaps you had all better go here and read the facts from people who are in the business of research themselves ! Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.

http://www.pcrm.org/


Then let's get on with a real debate on the subject

CVFA ( Cornwalls Voice for Animals )

I can't remember which brilliant mind said it but "conviction is at its strongest, when knowledge is at it weakest" Boy is that true! What gets me the most is that these people who for whatever reason will not/cannot even try to learn anything different will benefit from the more compassionate peoples actions. Product testing is obscenely cruel as anyone who has been brave enough to have a look for themselves knows. The dangers to our health from meat, dairy, chemicals in products, and prescription drugs will all be improved thanks to animal rights and they will reap the benefit as well, they don't deserve to!

"they" being those that vehemently resist progress and the ethical actions of others..

It's a shame B didn't want to respond to my questions about a Commission and product testing. He certainly had a lot to say earlier on... I wonder why he decided not to respond? I would have liked to have asked him a lot of questions. I wonder if that is why he went?

It's a shame B didn't want to respond to my questions about a Commission and product testing. He certainly had a lot to say earlier on... I wonder why he decided not to respond? I would have liked to have asked him a lot of questions. I wonder if that is why he went?

@ Lynne Thrower:

I apologize, but I have a problem taking someone who signed a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (otherwise known as H2O or "water") seriously.

http://www.thepetiti
onsite.com/1/ban-dan
gerous-chemicals-in-
our-food-and-water