Install this theme

vegan-vulcan:

"We don’t know that plants aren’t sentient!"

you know who we definitely absolutely know is sentient though

animals

tofugoddess:

thinkveganworld:

k9kelsey:

The price of milk!

The mother cow tries to follow the truck that takes her baby.  How can anyone know about this kind of thing and continue to support the meat and dairy industry?  This video is under two minutes long - please share it with friends.

This isn’t graphic at all, so I encourage anyone who eats dairy to watch it.

arocoun:

alhazredshound:

Need someone to cuddle with. Badly. Just curl up in their embrace and bury my head in their shoulder as they rub my back and sides lightly with their finger tips.

Haha, same for me!  It doesn’t even need to be a cute guy or anything.  The chance to cuddle with literally anyone who kinda-sorta gets me and cares would be wonderful.

I am a firm proponent of a mass vegan Tumblr cuddle party.

Anonymous
asks:
For the university program I'm choosing I will have to spend atleast 3 weeks working at a zoo and I feel really shitty about it already :( It's to learn about animal behaviour and body language and such, so I can see why it will be useful, but we could just as well watch a movie you know? Still its an obligatory part of the course so theres no getting around it. I want to use my education to help animals but idk if it can be justified to support these zoos? Im really not sure what to do :/

herbivorexvx:

fightingforanimals:

This could be an extremely important experiece in your life. Honestly.

I used to want to be a zookeeper. Studied hard, filled my head with information and facts about all animals, volunteered at a zoo, visited zoos every holiday, every day off, every chance I could afford. Went to college and studied a course which focuses largely on ‘exotic’ animals and captivity. 

And that’s when I realised how wrong it felt, to me. How everything I’d loved and enjoyed for the past seventeen years felt sick and wrong when I realised what happened to captive animals: everything, from being on daily medication just to keep them from going insane/psychotic, to being fed totally inappropriate diets, to the drastic lengths you’d have to go just to stop them being freaked out by the public attention every day (lengths, might I add, that very few establishments go to). I went from wanting to work as a head keeper, to being horrified and disappointed. The “magic” of zoos was completely taken away when I went to college. I had to do countless papers on captivity, on stereotypical behaviour in captive animals, in their general care, health and safety, enrichment, etc etc. This thorough dissection of the industry I loved was so important, so damn important. If I hadn’t gone through that, I might be working there today. Something that went against my core, as an animal lover. When I volunteered at the zoo, that was when things began to creep into my head… doubt. I worked with the lemurs in a walkthrough enclosure and these animals were mentally tortured. In fact, one of the lemurs was so stressed by life like this that he repeatedly climbed the electric fence and escaped into the country. Imagine purposely hurting yourself like that just to be free? 

When you do this, make notes, jot them down for yourself or just remember them, etch it into your memory. Take a good look at the things the public don’t notice. How small that cage is, compared to natural territory. How dull that coat is, those eyes, how repetitive that animal is being, or how he hides himself in the corner. How much time they actually have to get away from visitors. What foods they have versus what they should be eating (kibble, really??). 

Be their eyes. Take a good long look because working at a zoo, knowing what to look for in zoos that often gets overlooked or totally unnoticed by layman types, can be more life-affirming and give you more information about what you want to pursue in life, than reading any anti-cap article or book.

image

Tumba, who sat in this position for a long time staring at the visitors, before turning his back and burying his face in his hands. Not at “my zoo”.

image

Pygmy hippo floated in water for over two hours not moving. The rest of her enclosure was concrete.

image

Seeing parrots/macaws/etc in cages is always depressing.

image

Kept trying to hide her baby from view. She was really anxious, showing her teeth and wide-eyed, she carried him to the ‘indoor’ area to find that everyone had their faces pressed to the glass in there too, eventually she sat here - still on full view - but in an alcove, still looked stressed. No peace.

image

image

Finches kept in an ‘aviary’ the size of my wardrobe. I kid you not. This was one of the areas I had to work in during my volunteering. At the time I saw nothing wrong with it and merely focused my camera on the bird - however, i could easily fit the whole aviary in my lens by standing back a bit, it was that small. You can sort of guage the size by looking at the roof in the photo below.

image

image

Kept on hard concrete. The only substrate was the hay to eat in bales, there was no straw bedding put down. Fair enough if they eat it but that means you put more in, enough so it’s still comfortable for them even if they do have a nibble, you don’t just neglect them entirely by sticking them in a concrete paddock ffs.

image

Species-inappropriate walkthrough. Where I was mostly stationed during my volunteering. Two red bellies, one male and one female, were introduced to an already established troop of 9 male ring tailed lemurs. The two species would never meet in the wild as they occupy different areas of Madagascar. The ring tails mercilessly bullied these two, chasing, stealing food, fighting etc, until the red-bellies actually began demonstrate unnatural living patterns with regards to their species purely to avoid conflict. Again, before I began to study animals, I assumed this was fine because why would a zoo cause this stress? (Hint: to attract more visitors with a more exotic array of lemurs. They chose to ignore this and instead added yet another pair of lemurs, of a third species, which were the ones I mentioned before who kept escaping due to stress). This third species were the Black lemurs, and Lotfi was the escape artist. In this photo he is anxiously swishing his tail back and forth, waiting for the ring tails to leave the feeding station so he can eat.

image

image

Aggressive behaviour was ignored, and mostly provided amusement for staff and visitors.

These are all behaviours and settings that I did not even think about or notice before joining this course. I learnt so much more about animal behaviour and welfare than I ever did before. It has allowed me to become a better and more informed activist, and has completely changed my views of captivity for non-human animals.

This is fucking important. Zoos are nothing more than prisons.

This is really fucking important.

arocoun:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:


give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement
1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemiological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]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.[3][4][5]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.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals. 6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans. 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. [10][11][12] 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 also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 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.[14]12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]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.[16] These side effects included complications like 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. In humans, however it caused deaths. 18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans. 
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. 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.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves 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 23 deaths 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. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]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, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out 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.[21][22][23][24][25][26] 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.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]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:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] 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.[31][32]30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]32. 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.[36][37]33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]37. Pharmacia & 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 needed 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, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]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. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, 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 was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and 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 though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSEHUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES
Americans for Medical AdvancementREFERENCES:[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 [2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 [3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 [4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 [5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 [6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 [7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 [8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 [9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 [10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 [11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 [12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 [13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 [14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 [15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 [16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 [17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 [18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 [19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 [20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 [21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 [22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 [23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 [24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 [25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 [26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 [27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 [28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 [29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 [30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: [31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 [32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 [33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 [34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 [35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 [36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 [37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 [38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 [39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 [40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) [41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 [43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 [44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 [46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 [47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American Antivivisection Society [48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 [49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 [50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 [51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 [52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 [53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 [54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 [55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 [57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 [58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of [59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 [60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 [61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press [62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 [63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century. Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing. Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical. People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”
What You Can Do
Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.
REFERENCES
Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101
Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

Let’s put aside, for a moment, the scientific problems of animal testing.  What even gives us the right to use other thinking, feeling animals like they were inanimate objects?
We use animals for science because we believe them to be enough like us for the results to count.  Then, when asked why it’s okay to hurt animals, we say it’s because they’re too different from us to care about their lives.

arocoun:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS 
From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement


1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 

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

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.[3][4][5]

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.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]

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

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

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. [10][11][12] 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 also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 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.[14]

12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

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.[16] These side effects included complications like 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. In humans, however it caused deaths. 

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

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. 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.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves 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 23 deaths 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. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

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, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out 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.[21][22]
[23][24][25][26] 

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.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

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:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] 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.[31][32]

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]

32. 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.[36][37]

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]

37. Pharmacia & 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 needed 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, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

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. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, 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 was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and 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 though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. 

Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. 

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES

Americans for Medical Advancement

REFERENCES:

[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 
[2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 
[3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 
[4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 
[5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 
[6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 
[7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 
[8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 
[9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 
[10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 
[11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 
[12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 
[13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 
[14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 
[15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 
[16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 
[17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 
[18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 
[19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 
[20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, 
vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 
[21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 
[22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 
[23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 
[24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 
[25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 
[26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 
[27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 
[28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 
[29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 
[30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: 
[31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 
[32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 
[33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 
[34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 
[35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 
[36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 
[37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 
[38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 
[39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 
[40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) 
[41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 
[43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 
[44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 
[46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 
[47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American 
Antivivisection Society 
[48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 
[49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 
[50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 
[51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 
[52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 
[53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 
[54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 
[55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 
[57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 
[58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of 
[59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 
[60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 
[61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press 
[62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 
[63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century.

Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.

Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing.

Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical.

People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:

  1. Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
  2. According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
  3. Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
  4. 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
  5. The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
  6. A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
  7. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
  8. Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
  9. The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
  10. Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
  11. 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
  12. Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
  13. Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
  14. Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
  15. Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
  16. In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
  17. Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
  18. In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
  19. In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
  20. A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
  21. According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
  22. 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
  23. 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
  24. 78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
  25. Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
  26. One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
  27. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
  28. The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
  29. 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
  30. The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”

What You Can Do

  • Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
  • Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
  • Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
  • Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
  • Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.

REFERENCES

  • Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
  • ‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
  • Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
  • Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
  • Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
  • GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
  • F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
  • R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
  • D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
  • EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
  • AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
  • Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
  • Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
  • Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
  • Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
  • Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
  • Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
  • Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
  • Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
  • Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
  • K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
  • Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
  • Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
  • Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
  • Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
  • http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
  • Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
  • Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101

Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

Let’s put aside, for a moment, the scientific problems of animal testing.  What even gives us the right to use other thinking, feeling animals like they were inanimate objects?

We use animals for science because we believe them to be enough like us for the results to count.  Then, when asked why it’s okay to hurt animals, we say it’s because they’re too different from us to care about their lives.

arocoun:

askaubreyanything:

There’s nothing I hate more in all creation than a newborn baby. I absolutely hate them. The sight of one makes me want to vomit in my mouth. I don’t know what goes on in that fucked up head of hers to make her think half the shit she thinks. Let alone the fact she believes I like babies and that Tala and I actually want to see a picture of a vaginal parasite. Ew.

Haha, I don’t see the appeal of them, myself.

Well, we all exist because our parents decided to have a baby. And personally I’m very happy to be alive. Everyone you have ever loved exists only because they were once babies too. I’m not fond of babies at ALL but this is a pretty extreme take… Yes, procreation is unnecessary and adoption is a preferable choice, but even adoptable children can be babies too. They’re not parasites. They’re human beings that someone decided to bring into the world, whether or not they should have. But don’t hate the babies; hate the 99% of people who shouldn’t be having them.

arocoun:

vegansidekick:

www.vegansidekick.com

When I was 17, I read about factory farming on the internet.  I immediately went as vegetarian as I could (given my family), while looking tirelessly for evidence that animal rights folks were just exaggerating.  Naturally, it turns out that factory farming is just that bad.  
I thought, “That stuff was so horrible that I had to immediately go vegetarian.  Surely if I explain this to others, they’d have the same reaction.”
And with that thought began 12 years of my continuous disappointment in humanity.
I went vegan a few years later, after leaving my family’s place.

And anyone who doesn’t react this way to these truths and knowledge is frankly not worthy of my respect, or anyone’s for that matter. I changed as soon as I learned of the realities too. I just can’t understand how someone wouldn’t.

arocoun:

vegansidekick:

www.vegansidekick.com

When I was 17, I read about factory farming on the internet.  I immediately went as vegetarian as I could (given my family), while looking tirelessly for evidence that animal rights folks were just exaggerating.  Naturally, it turns out that factory farming is just that bad. 

I thought, “That stuff was so horrible that I had to immediately go vegetarian.  Surely if I explain this to others, they’d have the same reaction.”

And with that thought began 12 years of my continuous disappointment in humanity.

I went vegan a few years later, after leaving my family’s place.

And anyone who doesn’t react this way to these truths and knowledge is frankly not worthy of my respect, or anyone’s for that matter. I changed as soon as I learned of the realities too. I just can’t understand how someone wouldn’t.

carnism-is:

sad-buddha:

I am not vegan, i love milk and ice cream and steak but let me tell you something: i am against animal cruelty with all my soul. I always hear stories about idiotic boys harming and killing animals for FUN. FOR ENJOYMENT. nothing in this world, nothinngggg i promise you, breaks and upsets me more than animal cruelty. I’m so incapable of killing anything that even if i see a spider in the corner of my bath tub while im peeing at 3 in the morning, i will literally just take it and put it outside. but you know what actually i dont even care what people say about this, i eat meat because it IS FOOD IT IS PROTEIN AND I NEED IT TO LIVE I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SLAUGHTER OF THE ANIMAL WHATSOEVER and if you dont eat meat that is perfectly ok u just get ur proteins in another way but please do not say that i support it, rn im probably eating mac and (CHEESE) and crying about animal testing THANK U I COME IN PEACE

You need protein to live, but you do not need ANIMAL protein to live. Protein, including complete protein, is found easily and abundantly in plant based diets. There is nothing found in animal products we cannot obtain through a plant based diet, and no we don’t need to use supplements. Multiple nutritional associations agree: [Link] Therefore, the reason you eat animal products is for enjoyment, not necessity. I thought you were against harming and killing animals for enjoyment?  When you buy any animal products, or have someone buy them for you, you support the slaughter of animals. Your money is what helps financially support the industry. Your demand is why there is supply. 

^this

carnism-is:

sad-buddha:

I am not vegan, i love milk and ice cream and steak but let me tell you something: i am against animal cruelty with all my soul. I always hear stories about idiotic boys harming and killing animals for FUN. FOR ENJOYMENT. nothing in this world, nothinngggg i promise you, breaks and upsets me more than animal cruelty. I’m so incapable of killing anything that even if i see a spider in the corner of my bath tub while im peeing at 3 in the morning, i will literally just take it and put it outside. but you know what actually i dont even care what people say about this, i eat meat because it IS FOOD IT IS PROTEIN AND I NEED IT TO LIVE I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SLAUGHTER OF THE ANIMAL WHATSOEVER and if you dont eat meat that is perfectly ok u just get ur proteins in another way but please do not say that i support it, rn im probably eating mac and (CHEESE) and crying about animal testing THANK U I COME IN PEACE

You need protein to live, but you do not need ANIMAL protein to live. Protein, including complete protein, is found easily and abundantly in plant based diets. There is nothing found in animal products we cannot obtain through a plant based diet, and no we don’t need to use supplements. Multiple nutritional associations agree: [Link] Therefore, the reason you eat animal products is for enjoyment, not necessity. I thought you were against harming and killing animals for enjoyment?  

When you buy any animal products, or have someone buy them for you, you support the slaughter of animals. Your money is what helps financially support the industry. Your demand is why there is supply. 

^this

Anonymous
asks:
I thought you'd like this info! I looked at statistics from the Vegetarian Resource Group from 2012, and it told some demographics of who is veg*n in America. 3% of white people, 6% of black people, 8% of hispanics. 4% of people with $35,000-$50,000 a year family income, 5% with $35-50,000, etc. Guess which population had the lowest percent? People who make over $100k a year, at only 1%! So basically people just pull this idea out of their ass, that vegans are all rich white people.

princess-passion-flower:

princess-passion-flower:

OMG WOW 

PEOPLE WHO NEVER EAT MEAT, FISH, OR POULTRY
(Total Number of Vegetarians and Vegans)

4% Total
3% male
5% female
5% 18-34
4% 35-44
4% 45-54
3% 55-64
3% 65 plus
4% Northeast
3% Midwest
4% South
5% West
3% White
6% Black
8% Hispanic
4% Below $35,000 household income
5% $35,000 – $50,000 family income
4% $50,000 – $75,000 family income
5% $75,000 – $100,000 family income
1% Over $100,000 family income.
5% High school education or less
3% Partial college
5% College graduate

- See more at: http://www.vrg.org/blog/2012/05/18/how-often-do-americans-eat-vegetarian-meals-and-how-many-adults-in-the-u-s-are-vegetarian/#sthash.RTPh5qoA.dpuf

vegasmo:

justatemporarystay:

AMEN AFUCKINGMEN WHO IS THIS BEAUTIFUL MAN?!?!

Philip M’Fing Wollen, the man who should be in charge of the country… countries… all of them.

DOUBLE AMEN

carnism-is:

agent-carolina-church:

adviceforvegans:

On the left side, you see ‘food’ that has caused destruction, pain and suffering. You see sadness, fear and misery. 

On the right side, you see exactly the same food. Only on the right side, there was no destruction, pain or suffering. No sadness, no fear and no misery.

Is it really that hard? Go vegan.

You also taste no flavour #meatsquad

Says someone where a boca burger was probably the greatest extent of them trying alternatives to animal based foods, if that. When I was a vegan I don’t remember biting into a cake for the eggs; I don’t remember tasting the eggs at all. That’s the only difference, and there’s plenty of alternative binders that are flavorless. Your guilt is showing.

arocoun:

vegansmustbestoppeddeux:

Horrible News: Vegan Shatters Athletic Record

Further proof that vegans are some kind of alien lifeform hellbent on destroying civilization as you and I know it. A proof of their powers. This “man” was not only able to walk without having any protein in his “body” but destroys time record by more than 10 seconds. Be afraid….be very afraid.

And what about vitamin B12?  According to my feelings, the guy should have died halfway through.

So, I’m calling bullshit!  This video was made with mirrors and green-screen.

Totally fake; his bones would have shattered from lack of calcium! :P

organicandhappy:

starry-eyed-wolfchild:

Bee Hotels for Solitary Bees

You may be wondering what bees need a hotel for, when they make their own hives. The truth is that many species of bees are solitary – the do not live in hives but instead construct their own nest. The main reason for this is because in these species every female is fertile and this would not make for comfortable communal living in a hive.

Lol cute fuzzy bee in bee hotel