Animal Experimentation - Why the Pain must Stop #2 - Comments

Lab-grown organs DO NOT react in the same way. The body is a CLOSED environment for the most part. A HEART does not touch AIR in the human body. It does in a lab.

Yes, cosmetics testing on animals is unnecessary and there are probably other ways. Yes, animals and humans have different anatomies. Yes, destroying animal research will destroy medical advances.

Where are your sources? It was really hard to follow, there was no information pertaining to how you got to these conclusions, and this was just a rant.

Medicines tested in a lab do not translate effectively to the outside world one hundred percent of the time. Once the medicine has been diluted so it's not harmful to humans, it might not be as effective as it was in a lab.

You mentioned cancer patients willing to try experimental treatments, but you didn't tell us that cancer drugs are some of the most rigorously screened for possible harmful side effects because the patients are immunocompromised.

Next time, try citing sources.

Okay people's...This was an essay.
This is the freaking conclusion to it. If you haven't noticed.
I've read ALL of this in person. It acctually makes alot of sense but if you have nothing nice to post. Don't post it please.
~`*`Apple Butterfly Rulz!`*`~

A few years back a drug called phylidomide (spelling?) was tested on guinea pigs . the guinea pigs had no side effects , the pill was for morning sickness , the women who took these pills were fine , but their children - another story , each child whos parent ingested phylidomide became a sufferer of BBS ( Blue baby syndrome) Its a painful and damaging syndrome , not one child who suffered BBS came out with a fully functioning body - The point of this is to show Humans and Animals - though basically from the same source - have entirely different anatomies and lets not forget kids , the Bible says animal testings okay , because god gave us lordship over animals so we may do with them what we will , evolutions the nicer theory now ;)


Oh yeah and back up your article one look over it made me A) believe you were an idiot and B) that you were just ranting =/

You didn't need another article.
Spell-check, darling.
Cite references so we know what you're saying isn't complete bull.
These alternatives are obviously not so great if we're not using them.

You should probably put what's wrong with the alternatives, too. You expect me to believe in these perfect alternatives, yet for some reason these animal experimentars aren't using them yet? Hahaha, no.

It's nice you stated some alternatives, but I suddenly feel like your pushing the reader to side with you on animal experimentation. This second article just seemed more desperate and pushy then the first.

You didn't really need another article.
You didn't really explain anything in this article. It was like a shortened version of the other one.

Um, apologies for people offended by my comments on the two parts of this article. ((It's rather random to be saying this, but still :P))

Anywho, now I've learned that there actually are alternative ways to test medicines etc rather than animal testing, plus I had a place to vent about my thoughts on all this, so thanks for writing~

Stop writing these; the readers' pain must stop, too.

I think it thoughtful of you to have written an article in response to the commenters =plus rather smart, so you wont have to personally write to each commenter with what you wanted to reply to them=, and if you look at this article as a follow-up to the first (which the names of part one and two 'somehow' suggest :P), then I don't see a massive problem with this.
Thanks for even bothering, but when people are so passionate about controversial topics, it's going to be unlikely that they'll not be bitter about spelling and grammar. So spell check, or feel the wrath of the haters *now I'm kinda just teasing people on purpose ^.^*

So where are these alternatives you were going to explain in your article?

I did not see anything that gave an explanation (or proof that one exists -- no sources cited) to any solid and truly effective alternative.

I agree with Hellcat and The Master.
To be honest, you really didn't need [b]another[/b] article to repeat what the first article said... Surely one is enough.
If you care that much about the animals why don't you write to the government or something?
It's MEDICINE. Learn to spell, you're on a writing site after all.

Did this really need another article?

Surely you could have easily covered this in article one.

One: What? I'm sorry, I found your argument hard to comprehend through all your moonspeak. You have no proper thesis statement and your punctuation, grammar and spelling are distracting. Two paragraphs are not enough to thoroughly state whatever point you were trying to make.
Two: [i]A large amount of other alternatives work better in the development of items.[/i] Cite your sources, please. Research really goes a long way. Maybe you should take the time to find out what really happens in biomedical testing before condeming it.

I have two words for you: [b]Medical research[/b]. Are you honestly saying that you oppose animal testing in which the findings could save human lives? Without animal research, we have no biomedical science. And not only would we not have no biomedical research but we would also have no public health. We would lose about 85% to 90% of medical progress. Essentially, medical research would come to a halt. Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century. Many of us, including you, are alive, thanks to animal based treatments; from antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals.

While I do believe that the use of animals for cosmetic purposes is heinous and uneccesary, medical research is imperative and until we as humans can develop accurate alternatives to animal based biomedical research, we have to stick with animals.