Protesters’ ‘funeral march’ through Brighton (From The Argus)

I wonder how many of these people would refuse a drug allegedly tested on an animal if it was the only way to save thier childs life?

Testing Makeup is wrong and should not be allowed but most medical advancements have come from some form of testing and I wouldn't want to go back to the days of witch doctors.

Just because a lot of medicines are tested on animals, doesn't mean it's necessary. A lot of animals could be spared if we switched certain tests over to computer modelling and such, and the amount of animals used and non-vital tests that are performed is pretty large. Also we share a very low proportion of diseases and illnesses with animals, so overall animal testing doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

There is a plentiful supply of human beings who would be ideal for medicine and cosmetics testing. They have proven to be a burden and, in many cases, danger to society so why not get them to do something useful with their lives for once?

Argus - Why if the march was on Saturday 9th is it reported on Wednesday 13th?

Okay people:

1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident.
2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary.

Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

Dandyli0n wrote:
Okay people: 1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident. 2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary. Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

arrogant load of guff.....

Dandyli0n wrote:
Okay people:

1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident.
2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary.

Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

The animal suffers as little as possible!
They shouldnt be made to suffer at all

What are these scientists like? They've got all this computer modelling they can use but they will insist on spending huge amounts of money on animals. After all, it's not as if animal testing is controversial or anything, is it? Maybe they like being targets.

Anyway, how is a protest in Brighton going to help. Is anyone going to stop buying medicine?

Well done to all these people for doing this - ALL animal experiments are wrong, I am 100% against them and as a diabetic I can speak from my own experience, I would rather have died than have any animal suffer for me to be saved - so shove that where the sun don't shine dandylion.

Animals are totally defenceless and cannot tell someone if they are in pain.

Anyone who does animal experiments deserves to rot in hell forever in my opinion. They are the cesspit of society.

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Well done to all these people for doing this - ALL animal experiments are wrong, I am 100% against them and as a diabetic I can speak from my own experience, I would rather have died than have any animal suffer for me to be saved - so shove that where the sun don't shine dandylion.

Animals are totally defenceless and cannot tell someone if they are in pain.

Anyone who does animal experiments deserves to rot in hell forever in my opinion. They are the cesspit of society.

Are you insulin-dependent?

It's not just medicines - they are poisoned so people can buy new and improved and unnecessary oven cleaner, antibacterial sprays etc etc. They are force fed this rubbish until they die and then dissected. They are abused while alive as the RSPCA's rules don't apply. There is a better way and it's time we stopped torturing animals.

ChangeIsGood wrote:
It's not just medicines - they are poisoned so people can buy new and improved and unnecessary oven cleaner, antibacterial sprays etc etc. They are force fed this rubbish until they die and then dissected. They are abused while alive as the RSPCA's rules don't apply. There is a better way and it's time we stopped torturing animals.

No, they don't. No animal is used for oven cleaner

Define "a better way"

Number Six wrote:

ChangeIsGood wrote:
It's not just medicines - they are poisoned so people can buy new and improved and unnecessary oven cleaner, antibacterial sprays etc etc. They are force fed this rubbish until they die and then dissected. They are abused while alive as the RSPCA's rules don't apply. There is a better way and it's time we stopped torturing animals.

No, they don't. No animal is used for oven cleaner

Define "a better way"

Try this link
http://www.geari.org
/faqproducttest.html

In 2010, over 3.7 million experiments were started on animals, an increase of 3% (+105,000) since 2009 and a massive increase of 37% since 2000. 101,265 more animals were used in experiments in 2010 than in 2009 and 1 million more than those used in 2000. This figure is totally unacceptable, equivalent to beginning 10,205 experiments every day.

The statistics were announced today by the Home Office in the annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2010 (1).

Key areas are:

Despite overwhelming public opposition to the use of primates, 4,688 tests were carried out on primates. Although a slight overall decrease in the number of animals, an overall increase of 10% in number of procedures (reflecting increased re-use of animals). A shocking 72% increase in the numbers of tests on new world primates (such as marmosets).
A large increase in the number of tests to produce genetically modified animals (GM) and animals with a harmful defect (HM) (1.6 million tests). GM and HM animals now make up 54% of all tests. This dramatic and sustained increase in GM animal use raises many welfare concerns regarding the suffering experienced by these animals.
Number of tests on mice up 2% (2,670,067), new world monkeys up 78% (1,103) birds up 12% (142,034), and fish up 23% (490,944).
Tests on rats down 9% (305,139), rabbits down 10% (14,833), cats down 32% (187), dogs down 2% (5,782), horses down 5% (8,324). There has been an increase in the re-use of dogs in procedures. The numbers of dogs decreased by 10% but the number of procedures decreased only 2%.
69% of procedures were not conducted under anaesthesia; this is an increase from 65% in 2009.
Despite a government pledge to end household product testing on animals, and for the first time since 2008, animals were again used for household product tests (24 animals).
Use of animals for fundamental research in universities continues to rise (up 10%) compared to the pharmaceutical industry that has decreased its procedures by 19%.
The use of animals in procedures for chemicals testing rose 48%, probably as a result of new EU chemicals legislation REACH.
7,688 toxicological tests carried on foodstuffs (mostly testing the safety of shellfish), 16,977 tests for agricultural products (such as pesticides, herbicides and fungicides), and 27,104 tests carried out on industrial chemicals.
Animals continue to be used in their thousands for toxicity procedures such as skin irritation, eye toxicity and acute lethal toxicity. The use of animals in skin and eye irritation has risen (by 51% (696) and 20% (513) respectively) even though there are valid alternatives. The Home Office is not doing enough to reduce these experiments.
Animals continue to be used in disturbing tests such as thermal injury and physical trauma.
Contrary to the UK being hailed as a nation of animal lovers, 173 horses, 10,138 rabbits, 13,586 guinea pigs, 3,727 dogs and 152 cats were subjected to distressing experiments.

A recent review by the UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate found that 26 veterinary drugs were being tested on animals when there was no longer any scientific need. The review prompted a change in the licences for these drugs, sparing an estimated 38,000 animals over the next five years. The review was prompted by a BUAV investigation into Wickham Laboratories in Hampshire in 2009 which found that the laboratory was conducting horrendous rabbit and mouse tests for some veterinary drugs that international regulations no longer required.

It is a disgrace that animals have continued to be used for years in tests that were no longer required by international regulations. Once again, it calls into question the Home Office and research industry’s claims that animals are only used when absolutely necessary. The Home Office should be enforcing this legal requirement and regulators given the power to force companies to keep up to date with scientific and regulatory requirements in order to reduce animal experiments.

BUAV Chief Executive Michelle Thew states: “The UK should be leading the way in reducing animal testing. Unfortunately, these latest statistics show there is a long way to go. Despite a government pledge to reduce animals in research, millions continue to suffer and die in UK laboratories, even when tests are redundant or alternatives are available. This is unacceptable. It is a disgrace that animals have continued to be used for years in tests that were no longer required by international regulations. Once again, it makes a mockery of the claims made by the Home Office and research industry that animals are only used when absolutely necessary. We call on the Home Office to weed out all obsolete and redundant animal tests by enforcing the legal requirement that companies have to reduce animal experiments by keeping up to date with scientific and regulatory requirements. We also call on the Government to fulfil its pledge to reduce animal experiments, and make meaningful and lasting change.”

(1) The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2010 http://www.homeoffic
e.gov.uk/publication
s/science-research-s
tatistics/research-s
tatistics/science-re
search/spanimals10/s
panimals10?view=Bina
ry

Dandyli0n wrote:
Okay people:

1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident.
2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary.

Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

Seriously, did you stop to think for even one second before you allowed your hands to run unsupervised across the keyboard? No, I thought not.

Exactly what is it that you think gives you the right to torture and murder another animal. Under no circumstances should we still be carrying out the barbaric practices. They belong back in the 1970's.

They serve no useful purpose and can there is no justification for abuse such as this in this technologically advanced age.

Roundbill wrote:

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Well done to all these people for doing this - ALL animal experiments are wrong, I am 100% against them and as a diabetic I can speak from my own experience, I would rather have died than have any animal suffer for me to be saved - so shove that where the sun don't shine dandylion.

Animals are totally defenceless and cannot tell someone if they are in pain.

Anyone who does animal experiments deserves to rot in hell forever in my opinion. They are the cesspit of society.

Are you insulin-dependent?

Sorry "Roundbill" but it really doesn't matter if "getThisCoalitionOut
" is insulin dependent or not. None of us can change the appalling actions of past generations but that doesn't mean we should repeat them Ad Fininitum.

We need to learn from the mistakes we have made, change our future actions and putting an end to the vile experimentation performed on animals in the "name of science" must be our first priority.

To all those commenters in this article, The biggest scandal in todays society is those that use the animal model and those outdated laws that government wont put to date on science, the industry who uses animals are making money from it, and the they like to keep the laws that are still in place from 65 years ago when it states you mush use one rodent and one larger mammal, Its nothing to do with science, THE SCANDAL IS HERE .THOSE THAT PROMOTE ANIMALS IN RESEARCH ARE DELAYING MEDICAL PROGRESS, they know as much as I that animals fail in science, but as long as tax money keeps rolling in and grants, you will always have people like the ones above, employed to troll pages like this to keep us believing that its vital, when it useless, the law needs changing but that will be hard as at the moment most of the advisors on gov panels are involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and while the general public donate and believe in the propaganda no one will get anywhere, THOSE THAT PROMOTE THE USE OF ANIMALS ARE DELAYING MEDICAL PROGRESS, AND THAT IS A CRIME,

To all those commenters in this article, The biggest scandal in todays society is those that use the animal model and those outdated laws that government wont put to date on science, the industry who uses animals are making money from it, and the they like to keep the laws that are still in place from 65 years ago when it states you mush use one rodent and one larger mammal, Its nothing to do with science, THE SCANDAL IS HERE .THOSE THAT PROMOTE ANIMALS IN RESEARCH ARE DELAYING MEDICAL PROGRESS, they know as much as I that animals fail in science, but as long as tax money keeps rolling in and grants, you will always have people like the ones above, employed to troll pages like this to keep us believing that its vital, when it useless, the law needs changing but that will be hard as at the moment most of the advisors on gov panels are involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and while the general public donate and believe in the propaganda no one will get anywhere, THOSE THAT PROMOTE THE USE OF ANIMALS ARE DELAYING MEDICAL PROGRESS, AND THAT IS A CRIME,

Dandyli0n wrote:
Okay people:

1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident.
2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary.

Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

You do not know what you are talking about. It was uncovered the beagles where beaten, and abused during before and after test where done!! have a look on you tube.

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Well done to all these people for doing this - ALL animal experiments are wrong, I am 100% against them and as a diabetic I can speak from my own experience, I would rather have died than have any animal suffer for me to be saved - so shove that where the sun don't shine dandylion. Animals are totally defenceless and cannot tell someone if they are in pain. Anyone who does animal experiments deserves to rot in hell forever in my opinion. They are the cesspit of society.

Have you taken your medication?

Dandyli0n wrote:
Okay people:

1) Computer modelling is not a viable replacement for testing on live organisms. This is pretty evident.
2) Don't fall for this stupid "animals are too different to us, so animal testing isn't useful" line. The restrictions on animal testing, and the requirements for humane treatment of animals, are VERY strict. Scientists have to demonstrate that the animal suffers as little as possible, and getting the license is a difficult and lengthy process. Plus, scientists are far more informed about the usefulness of these tests than you are. They would not waste time getting restrictive licenses for animal testing if this was not the most effective method. Furthermore, all the scientists I have ever spoken to have described the lengths to which they go to avoid the animal's suffering, and regret the fact that it is necessary.

Of course, scientists should (and are) working to develop other viable methods of testing - hence computer models. However, these are not perfect, and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset, as well as being quite unappreciative of all the medical breakthroughs that have been made with the help of animal testing.

I cannot believe the comment "and anyone who thinks a beagle is more important than a human has a very twisted mindset". I must be twisted because I think we have absolutely no right to make these dogs suffer for our benefit. Surely we all understand by now dogs are complex feeling creatures who suffer from stress and anxiety, and can be happy and sad just the same as people. Idiots who keep making these types of comments without really thinking about what they are actually saying really make me angry.