500 mice used in Brighton University experiments (From The Argus)

Are the activists also against the sale and use of mouse traps and poison that are used to kill thousands upon thousands of rats and mice each year?

All people who think testing on animals is morally wrong should volunteer to forego all treatments and medicines that were tested on animals. That is, every single aspect of modern medicine.

Furthermore, the argument used by animal rights activists that animal testing is 'scientifically flawed' is completely false. It is a necessary stage of development for medicines and treatments. Contrary to what these ignorant people think, scientists DO actually test the validity of these trials (and have demonstrated their importance) and the restrictions on animal testing in this country are very strict and ensure that the animal suffers as little as possible. 'Brighton Animal Action' are not scientists and are not qualified to spread their false opinions on the matter; thinking that "it doesn't make sense" isn't a reflection on the process itself, but on their own ignorance of medical science.

I think it would be fairer to test on uni students who behave like vermin in my community, urinating randomly and leaving filth everywhere and breeding indiscriminately.

fredaj wrote:
Are the activists also against the sale and use of mouse traps and poison that are used to kill thousands upon thousands of rats and mice each year?

Yes of course they are you moron. What is your point?

Dandyli0n wrote:
All people who think testing on animals is morally wrong should volunteer to forego all treatments and medicines that were tested on animals. That is, every single aspect of modern medicine.

Furthermore, the argument used by animal rights activists that animal testing is 'scientifically flawed' is completely false. It is a necessary stage of development for medicines and treatments. Contrary to what these ignorant people think, scientists DO actually test the validity of these trials (and have demonstrated their importance) and the restrictions on animal testing in this country are very strict and ensure that the animal suffers as little as possible. 'Brighton Animal Action' are not scientists and are not qualified to spread their false opinions on the matter; thinking that "it doesn't make sense" isn't a reflection on the process itself, but on their own ignorance of medical science.

Modern medicine should not involve using animals. Yes it is morally wrong and yes scientifically flawed. No, I'm not a scientist but scientists were saying this 100 years ago. Non human animals shouldn't be suffering at all to further us. What makes us better than them? Please explain this to me because no one so far has been able to.

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

fredaj wrote:
Are the activists also against the sale and use of mouse traps and poison that are used to kill thousands upon thousands of rats and mice each year?

Yes of course they are you moron. What is your point?

Why call someone a moron as it really does your cause little good.
The fact that these rodents are controlled is one of the reasons we lead a peaceful and relatively disease free life.
We don't do it ourselves of course by and large. The people who work for our sanitation services do as matter of fact day to day work - every single day of the year.

So what is wrong with killing a pair of mice that when mated and have offspring would probably produce enough on their own for the experiment.Having cared for people with Dementia I would rather a few mice die than have to let these poor people continue to suffer.
My cats bring me home at least 2 mice or small rodents most days.I must tell them to stop it.

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse

rname wrote:

fredaj wrote:
Are the activists also against the sale and use of mouse traps and poison that are used to kill thousands upon thousands of rats and mice each year?

Yes of course they are you moron. What is your point?

Why call someone a moron as it really does your cause little good.
The fact that these rodents are controlled is one of the reasons we lead a peaceful and relatively disease free life.
We don't do it ourselves of course by and large. The people who work for our sanitation services do as matter of fact day to day work - every single day of the year.

It was a moronic comment. If someone is against mice being used in experiments why wouldn't they be against their extermination whether it's by traps, poison or any other method?

The only reason mice or rats for that matter are in our homes, restaurants or places they are not wanted is because we leave food around and are unsanitary ourselves - the same reason for urban foxes. Is that not true?

rolivan wrote:
So what is wrong with killing a pair of mice that when mated and have offspring would probably produce enough on their own for the experiment.Having cared for people with Dementia I would rather a few mice die than have to let these poor people continue to suffer.
My cats bring me home at least 2 mice or small rodents most days.I must tell them to stop it.

How is experimenting on mice going to help people with dementia other than prolonging their misery for a couple more years. Will it cure them? Do we really need to know how to cure dementia in mice, because that is all you are going to find out by experimenting on them. We are not mice.

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

rolivan wrote:
So what is wrong with killing a pair of mice that when mated and have offspring would probably produce enough on their own for the experiment.Having cared for people with Dementia I would rather a few mice die than have to let these poor people continue to suffer.
My cats bring me home at least 2 mice or small rodents most days.I must tell them to stop it.

How is experimenting on mice going to help people with dementia other than prolonging their misery for a couple more years. Will it cure them? Do we really need to know how to cure dementia in mice, because that is all you are going to find out by experimenting on them. We are not mice.

I guess you are all for Natural attrition so the misery will last longer than a few years as we have an ageing population.
I can't see people walking around with ears growing off of their bodies either.

Dandyli0n wrote:
All people who think testing on animals is morally wrong should volunteer to forego all treatments and medicines that were tested on animals. That is, every single aspect of modern medicine. Furthermore, the argument used by animal rights activists that animal testing is 'scientifically flawed' is completely false. It is a necessary stage of development for medicines and treatments. Contrary to what these ignorant people think, scientists DO actually test the validity of these trials (and have demonstrated their importance) and the restrictions on animal testing in this country are very strict and ensure that the animal suffers as little as possible. 'Brighton Animal Action' are not scientists and are not qualified to spread their false opinions on the matter; thinking that "it doesn't make sense" isn't a reflection on the process itself, but on their own ignorance of medical science.

By saying animal experiments us flawed is 'completely false' means you think it is 100% correct. You are either completely ignorant, or..no you are completely ignorant. Where shall we start? Thalidomide which tested safe on rats?

Rather than use animals for experiments, test on convicted criminals then they might actually end up doing something worthwhile with their lives.

Do I understand the position correctly?

Respondents (generally) abhor using animals to develop science for the benefit of mankind, but are variously happy to eat animals, use animal based products, or to (by their very presence) displace animals and ensure that future generations do not come into existence- think of the number of species exterminated by mankind simply for being a nuisance.

And for the record, I did when I was younger act as a volunteer for a variety of new drugs including high ceiling loop diuretics and beta blockers. Some proved of immense value, some less so to the point of being withdrawn from trials. So I think I am entitled to take the moral high ground here...

And Archie Bun, Thalidomide IS perfectly safe, and is still in use. The problem there was the manuafacturing process in use at the time.

Goldenwight wrote:
Do I understand the position correctly?

Respondents (generally) abhor using animals to develop science for the benefit of mankind, but are variously happy to eat animals, use animal based products, or to (by their very presence) displace animals and ensure that future generations do not come into existence- think of the number of species exterminated by mankind simply for being a nuisance.

And for the record, I did when I was younger act as a volunteer for a variety of new drugs including high ceiling loop diuretics and beta blockers. Some proved of immense value, some less so to the point of being withdrawn from trials. So I think I am entitled to take the moral high ground here...

And Archie Bun, Thalidomide IS perfectly safe, and is still in use. The problem there was the manuafacturing process in use at the time.

I don't eat animals, dairy, eggs, wear animals (wool, fur, leather,silk), use animal based products. I read up on companies before purchasing goods from them in case they have anything to do with animal testing - it's amazing how many companies do. Most people that claim to be vegan live like this.

Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there...
@CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party
@Ihopenoonehasthisus
ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans?

The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold:
1. Similar genetics to humans
2. Fast to breed
3. Easy to handle
4. In 2012 there is no com

To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

My point 4 should have read:
"4. In 2012 there are no computer model simulations to replicate the rodent genes"

BradleyWiggins wrote:
Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

Why is the general opinion of pro vivisectionists on here that anyone who is against animal testing must be a hypocrite? It's very ignorant of you and is a straw man argument.

BradleyWiggins wrote:
Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote:
Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote:
Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

What right do we have to let people die of potentially curable diseases? Get real. Would you let your family turn down life saving treatment because of the process of finding a cure doesnt meet with your rose-coloured glass-wearing morals? Do you think that research community actually enjoys animal experimentation? Not at all. Until there is a suitable alternative (ie. advanced computer modelling) then you will have to put up with it.

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

That doesn't answer my question now does it.

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

That doesn't answer my question now does it.

Yes. It is the end of the argument. Now shut up and go away.

BradleyWiggins wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

What right do we have to let people die of potentially curable diseases? Get real. Would you let your family turn down life saving treatment because of the process of finding a cure doesnt meet with your rose-coloured glass-wearing morals? Do you think that research community actually enjoys animal experimentation? Not at all. Until there is a suitable alternative (ie. advanced computer modelling) then you will have to put up with it.

You aren't answering my question are you. I'm asking what gives us the right to cause pain and suffering to a sentient being to further us. Do you have a family dog or cat? Would you allow them to be experimented on? No? Why not? What makes the animals in labs different to the ones we class as family or friends?

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

That doesn't answer my question now does it.

Yes. It is the end of the argument. Now shut up and go away.

I'm not arguing am I. I'm asking a question.

Ah, the age old problem of household pets versus laboratory animals. Do you think that your flea treatment/antibiotic
/worming tablet you give to Tiddles on a regular basis has not been tested on another animal? Think again. Unfortunately the emotional bond between pet and human is very strong and sometimes blinkers our logical understanding of the clinical trail process either in humans and animals. Until we find an alternative (artificial modelling, cloning, advanced computer modelling) we will still be trialling drugs in animals and humans.

@Ihopenoonehasthisus
ername

You need to ask a lot more questions, preferably before blurting out your opinions.

You ask what makes us “better” than them, which is flawed terminology.

Mice are used partly because they have a reduced capacity for suffering compared to human beings because of how their brains are constructed. I can confirm that humans suffering from disease are aware of their own mortality which adds more stress to any pain, and often have dependents – try telling a mum of young kids who’s dying of cancer that she has the moral equivalence of a mouse.

Mice also breed fast and you can study inter-generational effects without waiting 80 years for a human test subject. If only Thalidomide had been tested on pregnant mice, its effects would have been spotted. Incidentally, Thalidomide WAS tested on 207 human women, but no effects were recorded.

Mice have been replaced in some cases with fruit flies in experiments. Do you agree with that? What makes a mouse better than a fruit fly? And why wouldn’t that scale up to the difference between a mouse and a human?

To put all lifeforms on a par on the basis they’re alive is too simplistic a metric, and makes a fatal assumption, which is that all animal testing is done for humans – it isn’t. Contrary to your peculiar and probably un-researched belief, we are genetically almost identical to vertebrates, because we evolved from a common ancestor and so research allows us to know how both their and our bodies work. This is where vets cures and animal vaccines come from, so what makes one mouse better than another mouse?

To oppose this work is to endorse disease epidemics, so please don’t pretend you’re trying to end suffering. If people like you had your way, Western Lowland Gorillas would soon be extinct, rather than having an Ebola vaccine created by us evil scientists and rabies would be rife.

The truth is, your position is scientifically baseless and accidentally cruel. Your hippy cures don’t work. Your “alternative” methods of research aren’t actually alternatives, so much as complimentary methods, but you’re not a scientist so you don’t know that. It’s like saying the clutch in your car is an alternative to the accelerator.

Show us some proper evidence – peer reviewed in a proper journal rather than anecdotal evidence or a quote from Gandhi cut and pasted from a website festooned with animated GIFs.

Science has had it up to here with uneducated loons making stupid claims – the climate change deniers, anti-vivisectionists and that bloke that thought the Large Hadron Collider would make a black hole that would swallow the Earth are all in the same rickety boat – read a textbook or two before commenting.

Also as a post script to the thread above about Thalidomide: it was in fact not *enough* testing in animals and a rush to bring the drug to market which caused those awful birth defects. - During patenting and testing in the late 1950s, scientists realised it was practically impossible to achieve a deadly overdose of the drug. However, animal tests did not include tests looking at the effects of the drug during pregnancy. Also it was tested in one animal species only. Most drugs today are tested in 2 species because of this massive mistake made in Thalidomide.

towerhil wrote:
@Ihopenoonehasthisus ername You need to ask a lot more questions, preferably before blurting out your opinions. You ask what makes us “better” than them, which is flawed terminology. Mice are used partly because they have a reduced capacity for suffering compared to human beings because of how their brains are constructed. I can confirm that humans suffering from disease are aware of their own mortality which adds more stress to any pain, and often have dependents – try telling a mum of young kids who’s dying of cancer that she has the moral equivalence of a mouse. Mice also breed fast and you can study inter-generational effects without waiting 80 years for a human test subject. If only Thalidomide had been tested on pregnant mice, its effects would have been spotted. Incidentally, Thalidomide WAS tested on 207 human women, but no effects were recorded. Mice have been replaced in some cases with fruit flies in experiments. Do you agree with that? What makes a mouse better than a fruit fly? And why wouldn’t that scale up to the difference between a mouse and a human? To put all lifeforms on a par on the basis they’re alive is too simplistic a metric, and makes a fatal assumption, which is that all animal testing is done for humans – it isn’t. Contrary to your peculiar and probably un-researched belief, we are genetically almost identical to vertebrates, because we evolved from a common ancestor and so research allows us to know how both their and our bodies work. This is where vets cures and animal vaccines come from, so what makes one mouse better than another mouse? To oppose this work is to endorse disease epidemics, so please don’t pretend you’re trying to end suffering. If people like you had your way, Western Lowland Gorillas would soon be extinct, rather than having an Ebola vaccine created by us evil scientists and rabies would be rife. The truth is, your position is scientifically baseless and accidentally cruel. Your hippy cures don’t work. Your “alternative” methods of research aren’t actually alternatives, so much as complimentary methods, but you’re not a scientist so you don’t know that. It’s like saying the clutch in your car is an alternative to the accelerator. Show us some proper evidence – peer reviewed in a proper journal rather than anecdotal evidence or a quote from Gandhi cut and pasted from a website festooned with animated GIFs. Science has had it up to here with uneducated loons making stupid claims – the climate change deniers, anti-vivisectionists and that bloke that thought the Large Hadron Collider would make a black hole that would swallow the Earth are all in the same rickety boat – read a textbook or two before commenting.

You miss my point completely, and you still didn't answer my question.

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

That doesn't answer my question now does it.

Yes. It is the end of the argument. Now shut up and go away.

I'm not arguing am I. I'm asking a question.

I've answered it. I'll answer it again. They are mice. We are human. End of argument.

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse

rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

PorkBoat wrote:

Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname wrote:

BradleyWiggins wrote: Oh boy there are some ignoramuses out there... @CrystallBall - very good. You would have done well in the 1930s working in the Nazi party @Ihopenoonehasthisus ername - we share 98% of our genes with mice. We can detect dementia very early in rodents - would you rather wait to do this in 60+ years in humans? The reason that mice (and other rodents) are many fold: 1. Similar genetics to humans 2. Fast to breed 3. Easy to handle 4. In 2012 there is no com To the people out there who are against testing I would seriously ask you to think carefully when taking your cold medicine, paracetamol, asthma inhaler etc. Also, see those jeans that you are wearing? Do you think the dye in your precious Levis wasnt tested before you bought them? Think again. If it wasn't for this highly regulated and controlled part of medical science we would still be living in the 18th Century...

So what if the gene in mice is similar to ours? What gives us the right to take another living creature, breed it then test on it? What makes our survival more important than them?

Because we are humans and they are mice. End of argument.

That doesn't answer my question now does it.

Yes. It is the end of the argument. Now shut up and go away.

I'm not arguing am I. I'm asking a question.

I've answered it. I'll answer it again. They are mice. We are human. End of argument.

Why don't you vent your disgust on Damien Hirst that is a real issue letting all of those butterflies and moths die for so called Art.

you ever heard of a vegetarian lion?