HOME | DD
kittywinter — Pro-Test
Published: 2009-03-06 17:57:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 1174; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 33
Redirect to original
Description
I apologise in advance; I won't be uploading a vast amount of these, as this is meant to be a gallery for ' proper ' stuff ... not arsing around in PSP! I recently bought myself a subcription, and found myself quickly addicted to the use of stamps - but a few of my causes yielded no results. So I thought I'd make my own to fill the gaps.This is made in support of the group Pro-Test, who campaign in favour of animal research and try to dispell the propaganda and myths spread by the animal rights lobby.
Pro-Test homepage:
[link]
Related content
Comments: 44
Wether the Propoganda is true or not, one thing is an always will be true and disgusting about science:
Every Medical and Fashion related acheivement has been stained with innocent blood.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
From Pro-test.org, you know, the the topic this stamp is talking about and the link you appaently neglected to click?
"Living organisms are incredibly complex and scientists still only understand a very small fraction of the structures, chemicals, interactions and metabolic pathways in humans and animals. The only way for scientists to learn more about them is through organisms that possess these traits. That's why animal research is so important for the future of medicine and the ability to treat and cure diseases.
Anti-vivisectionists often claim that vivisection is 'junk science'. The benefits accruing from animal testing demonstrate that this is nonsense. Another claim is that they want to save medical science from the 'dark ages' by banning animal research and using alternatives instead.
Alternatives to animal testing do exist -- and scientists already use them. In fact, they are mandated to do so by law wherever possible. Licences to carry out animal testing are only granted by the UK's Home Secretary when a convincing case is made that the likely benefits to human beings outweigh any welfare loss to animals. Furthermore, animal testing is an incredibly costly process and needs to be minimised for economic reasons.
So what alternatives do exist? Tests are carried out using cells, DNA, proteins, and in-vitro techniques in the initial stages of biomedical research. It's only when a point is reached where no experimental model can be substituted for a living organism that animal testing is considered. For instance, no amount of testing on computer models or strings of cells can tell us what the likely effect of a drug will be on blood pressure - because neither of these things has a circulatory system, blood, heart, and so on. Likewise, we cannot predict how a drug might be metabolised without introducing it to an organism with a liver. We must therefore trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage.
When working to learn new information in science, the process starts at the smallest level possible. This is often work done with DNA from cell lines or the proteins that cause disease. As scientists and researchers learn more about their topic, the level of complexity increases in the models they study. They may move on to bacterial cells, then mammalian (animal and human) cells, then into entire organs and eventually into animals. The principles of 'reduce, refine and replace' are not a revolutionary alternative to animal research - they represent what scientists already do.
Anti-vivisectionists sometimes claim that a computer programme has been invented which correctly simulates an entire human body, and that this could be used instead of animals. This is totally false - no such programme exists, and no computer powerful enough to create such a model exists either. Computer models of simple proteins are used in the early stages of medical research but, like all alternatives to full organisms, are strictly limited in their applications. We simply do not have the technological sophistication to replicate the incredibly intricate and sensitive machinery of even the simplest animal organisms, let alone the much more complex human body.
So asking why alternatives aren't used is a misleading question. The experiments used that aren't performed in animals are complementary to the experiments performed in animals and help researchers understand the big picture of a disease or system.If there are any methods that can be used before an animal to learn new information, British law dictates they must be used."
Try clicking the link next time and educate yourself before you form an opinion on the subject.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I will never support the killing of innocents when those deserving of the life sentence get away scott-free. perhaps testing on humans deserving of that fate would be more appropriate because after all,it's about humans, oh wait... That's ethically incorrect...
Your ignorance is astounding. First of all voluntary human testing does exist. Google it sometime you ignorant fuck. Or here: [link]
Second of all, Animal testing is also done to improve medicine for animals as well. Did you know animal testing helped create the rabies vaccine? That's millions of animals saved from that vaccine alone and that's just the tip of the iceberg on what animal testing has brought us.
Finally you might be on to something there. Perhaps arsonists like Ray Coronado, and all his ALF fuck bubbies should own themselves up for testing.
A better question would be: Why don't you volunteer? Why aren't you signing up?
And I can form an opinion however I want, why? because it's an opinion. Even an opinion is pure bull shit. If someone else broadcasts theirs any one has the right to explain theirs.
Your opinion is yet another uneducated opinion deriven from the inability to look at the facts placed in front of you. Or maybe you just don't want to admit that animal testing helps and would instead fall on propaganda and lies made by animal rights groups?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
An anatomy teacher I had a couple of years ago used to work in an animal testing lab. And she loved animals. Occasionally she'd get attached to some of the mice and start thinking of them as pets, and yes, would mourn them if they died...I used to like listening to her stories, because they were so different than what I was used to hearing, and that whole experience opened my eyes some in regards to the animal testing scene.
I never really understood why people just assume that the scientists that do that work are heartless and cruel. I doubt many of the dissenters have ever talked to one.
And we all know that trying to find cures for deadly diseases is absolutely the most heartless thing anyone can do, and clearly they only get into it because of a lack of respect for life, right?
Anyways...nice stamp. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The best part about all this is when you ask anti-testers question like "If your child is ill and the only cure that can help was tested on animals, would you agree to use it?" And they are trying to do their best at not answering this question because they have nothing to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's the same with medicines that were tested on blacks and slaves. We still use them, but are against testing on blacks and slaves
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I support animal testing and I'm not scared to say that anymore
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I say that animal testing is wrong, but for the purpose to create a cure for a certain disease, I guess I'd be okay with it, if they at least treat the animals well.
But unneccesary animal tesing, like "omg let's make this new hairspray for lots of money, and to not get any lawsuits, will need to do lots of animal testing, ASAP!" I believe we can live with the hairsprays in existence right now, thank you very much <_<; also, for an existing product, if you already know that no one has died due to your product, don't keep testing it on animals >:U are you stupid (refering to the ocmpany that'd do it, not you, lol)?
I've never heard about Pro-test before. *goes check*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi; thanks for your comment, it's lovely to hear a sensible point of view! I agree, cosmetic testing is pointless and not something that either I or Pro-Test support.
I hope you find the Pro-Test homepage useful, I'm always glad to introduce people to it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome and yeah 
Thanks ^_^ I'll check the website~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks.
Thank you for being so open-minded!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome 
I never knew I was open minded until I checked the definition 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Animal testing is just fucking wrong! In every way!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As is allowing people to die of cancer. Having looked at your page, can you honestly tell me that if your boyfriend or one of your pets - yes, veterinary medicine is tested also - was to fall ill, you wouldn't allow them to have treatment?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not going to even argue, it's not worth it. Think what you want, but what you think isn't fucking right! bye!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or you realise that you have no adequate response to my point. But that's fine; I don't think you're right, either! Bye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, I just don't want to argue.
And it's okay, just keep supporting something that tortures animals and don't feel guilty about it, bye now!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DISGUSTING. There's nothing useless like animal testing.
And, BobTodd, for your information I'm pro abortion. It has absolutely nothing to do with this!
Alternative testing already exists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Research. It makes you look less of an idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do research. You don't know anything about me to be allowed to call me idiot.
I'm also pro GMO if you're interested. There's not only ONE way to do anything, you know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm very glad to see this! It's nice to see that Pro-Test has enlightened so many people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome =]. I should be thanking you though, reminiscing about the demos for Pro-Test...Ahhh, good times...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've never been on one! Always wanted to, though. I'll have to keep my ear to the ground in case any crop up in my area...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've lived in and around Oxford, where the original Pro-Test was founded and based (And I personally know the founder, Laurie Pycroft and was there on the fateful day it was born...) so I naturally went. The lab was built and is protected like Fort Knox, but it's there and doing good things
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for doing this! People have such a misconception about animal testing, it's something that might never be reversed, but at least some people understand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And in return, thank YOU for commenting!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let's stand up for science.
Of course, I do agree lab animals need to be treated as humanely as possible, but let's be honest: medical progress needs animal testing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I AGREE ABOUT THE TREATING THEM HUMANELY PART 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In medical research, animal testing is currently an irreplaceable method of determining the safety of drugs, so as unappealing and cruel as it is, with current technology there's just no way around it.
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to lessen their suffering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup ... I think they should at least give them treats and hugs and kisses, treat them like pets
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly. I think people just hear 'animal testing' and immediately think of dogs being made to smoke cigarettes or rabbits have mascara stuck in their eyes - when the reality is entirely different.
Thank you for the comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Woo! Your quite brave actually doing this stamp cause you know the amount of ballshit and dribble you may get from campaigners etc XD
Still you rock and definatly going on my stamp feature list
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for this stamp and the info behind it. I wasn't sure which side to be on but now I know.I'm post this stamp on my page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much for the comment; it's good feedback to have!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for making this. It's sad how little most people know about animal testing. It's like abortion - no one likes it, and in an ideal world it wouldn't exist. But in the real world it needs to be available or we'd be pretty stuck without it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well said! Maybe one day we'll have advanced enough to find ways of replicating living organisms, but until then animal testing is the only way. Thank you for your comment, it's always nice to find some support.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is modelling an artificial pancreas that could one day in approximately the next 5 years and could cure Type 1 diabetes. It's very interesting, because the pancreas doesn't only make insulin, but the artificial one does all the other jobs as well. I find it fascinating XP.
Anyway, I completely support your side of the story because I wouldn't be alive is Frederick Banting hadn't tested on dogs.
This stamp will be featured in my journal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0