HOME | DD
wiht β Stop Animal Testing Stamp
Published: 2008-04-17 20:11:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 14905; Favourites: 760; Downloads: 44395
Redirect to original
Description
Looking through the cageLooking through our prison
Looking through at you
Begging you to help us
Begging you to set us free
Free from this hellhole
Animal testing has been going on for years. It has been going on for years, and with no law against it. Animal testing, which at times ends up with the mass killing of animals, is legal. Completely, and utterly legal.
Though laws have been set to ensure the animals feel no pain, not all labs follow these laws. Sometimes, labs will even go as far as to open up an animal without using anything at all to numb the pain the animal is sure to be feeling. In other words, they give the animal surgery while they are AWAKE, and without ANY painkillers. How much sicker can you get?
So, how do you solve the problem? Simple, you get rid of it all together. There are other options in this modern day, options that will produce the same effects. If you are against inhumane animal testing as well, *put this in your DA journal. (Use :thumb83120002: )
Comments and
s are much appreciated. Credits:
Image: [Link]
Template: [Link]
*If you do not have a DA subscription, you can not directly put it up there. ;~; Please link to it normally, if you can't use the thumbcode!
Related content
Comments: 199
yeh. I'm thinking of making a gag stamp with a dog or mouse, or fruit fly with words of "I'm worth much more than your loved ones"
π: 0 β©: 1
thats not a good idea in my eyes, your loved ones are far more valuable.
π: 0 β©: 1
it'll be a gagstamp. but I swear there are people "who'd rather die in pain of a horrible disease than have a doggie suffer for them" or "i'm fine with having a child with terrible birth defects who'll live for a year, at least I'll take care of him/her more than the poor mice who need to suffer so they can find cures for my dead kid"
I've ran into folks who do have terrible, terminal illnesses who are anti testing, even if it'll make their life better
π: 0 β©: 0
I am totaly against animal testing unless its use is absolutely neccesary - which it is in some cases. Speaking as a new veterinary student, I have looked a lot into the subject.
I very much doubt that animals are operated on without anasthetic - have you ever seen an operation? if you have then you would know that (dispite the fact that no animal on earth would stay still enough while being operated on consious) it would likely die of shock first, and therefore make the expeirment useless.
The animals being tested on are cared for and looked after way better than many pets are - at least they are not being abused or left to rot in sick conditions. Yes the experiments may lead to pain or even death, but it is nescessary for medical advancement. Without it there would be more events such as the thalidomide disaster, which resulted in loads of deformed babies being born - did those children really deserve to suffer just because a drug wasnt tested properly?
Also, the drugs being tested may in future be used to treat diseases in animals too - it it not just for human benefit, or because scientists are sick people who enjouy animal torture just for the sake of it. That is not how it works.
π: 0 β©: 1
but the'll test on animals to learn how to do surgery on sick ones? or do they just go "hey your dog is sick. want Poochie to be the first to try this new medication for his kidneys?"
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry I dont understand your point. Please clarify a little? Are you saying that its not a good thing that new medication is tested on a dog which is ill anyway? Most owners would be prepared to try a new treatment if theres a chance it will cure their pet. And its not really 'surgery' that requires testing - its testing of drugs. If drugs are not tested then severe consequences happen (as I've said above), therefore it is neccesary.
π: 0 β©: 1
from my many fights on line, some people also hate the fact that animal testing, can help animals as well.
not just the cosmetic testing
or "sadistically torturing rats" for genetic research
or testing a medication for dogs, on a dog
π: 0 β©: 2
By the way, animal testing for cosmetic purposes is now illegal in most countries, and yes I do agree that this type of testing is un-neccessary and cruel, dont get me wrong here - I'm a huge animal lover and want to spend my life working to improve animal welfare as a vet.
But do you really think that if a cure to cancer is found that will end the suffering of thousands of people (and aminals) and save lives then this is a bad thing that a few animals were tested on in the process? Dont you believe it is for a good cause?
If it was at all possible to test the medication in other ways than scientist do - and believe me, I know this because I've had lectures on the subject. I'm a veterinary student and when we do most of our 'lab practicals' they mostly involve watching simulated experiments on computer screens because we agree that it is cruel to use real animals for this purpose.
Rats are not 'sadistically tortured' - I dont know where you got that phrase from but it is not true. It is illegal. You make it sound as if the scientists enjoy doing this stuff - its just their job, yet they get so much abuse for it. You have no idea how many precautions they have to take to minimise animal suffering - the laws is actually really tight on this subject.
π: 0 β©: 1
[link]
kids like this. I don't know how many young teens really know their ass from their elbow when it comes to testing.
most them only know what PETA says, or get their facts from the 1920's
π: 0 β©: 2
Dont get me wrong, I am dead against animal cruelty and the whole shark-killing thing going on at the moment breaks my heart. I just believe that if the testing on a few animals save the suffering of thousands more animals in future then it is a good thing, even if it seems an evil way to reach it. Sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of two evils!
π: 0 β©: 0
The people on these kinds of websites and forums have no evidence for any of their claims. They dont give any proof or back up or state the sourses of their information. Half of this stuff is untrue, and they are just trying to use crazily exaggerated stories to persuade people to their cause. If I was to be taken in by them - I would like to see their statistics and solid proof. It sounds like these statements were just made by kids rather than educated people.
π: 0 β©: 1
oh, they are, trust me. some are so so so so so crazy you want to ring their necks.
just because a few people "are mean" or someone had hidden cameras in one facility where they slaped a monkey around and laughed about it.
"wahh animal testing, they insinerate the rats alive when done"
it makes me want to make a stamp "you're 12, what can you know about anything" and artists comment say "ok this counts for 10-14, and know anything, i mean things like politics, religion and science, and social sciences"
"wahh animal testin, they stick needles in the eyes of bunnies for no reason"
when you ask for proof, they just send you to PeTa
π: 0 β©: 0
By the way cosmetic testing on animals is actually illegal now in most countries - and yes I agree that type of testing in un-neccessary and cruel.
But do you honestly think that if a cure to cancer is found that will save thousands of lives in the future (humans and animals), then this is a bad thing if some animals had to suffer for it? No-body likes this fact but dont you think it is for a good cause?
If it was at all possible to test the medication in other ways than scientist do - and believe me, I know this because I've had lectures on the subject. I'm a veterinary student and when we do most of our 'lab practicals' they mostly involve watching simulated experiments on computer screens because we agree that it is cruel to use real animals for this purpose.
Rats are not 'sadistically tortured' - I dont know where you got that phrase from but it is not true. It is illegal. You make it sound as if the scientists enjoy doing this stuff - its just their job, yet they get so much abuse for it. You have no idea how many precautions they have to take to minimise animal suffering - the laws is actually really tight on this subject.
π: 0 β©: 1
i am on a number of forums and websites, and hang out at Yahoo Answers. these are things I see being said
"did you know how they treat animals in testing? they beat the monkies up"
"did you know the rabbits are force fed junk food just so we can know Twinkies are bad for you?"
"don't you ever stop to think about how much rats greive when their friends and families die during testing?"
"did you know they steal kittens and drill stuff into their brains and laugh about it?"
"how can you support the suffering of these caring, loving, thinking, feeling beings, and for what? a new pill?"
"I value the life of a doggy more than any human, humans suck, by the way time to take my life saving medication, without it i'll die in a week"
"animal testing is just an excuse for crudity"
"i'd rather die of an illness than be saved by something that tortured a mouse to death"
"animal testing is mean, animals can feel pain, save the bunnies!"
=======
I really should open a free webs account and fill it with these screen caps of the stupidity.
i could give you links, but you'll need to join some forums.
when ever I see topics on animal abuse, it's always that, yeh genetic research with rats is the end-all to crudity. but chopping off a kitten's feet, microwaving hamsters isn't.
"because our technology is so good today, we have so many good computer programs and cloned cells, we don't need it anymore"
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry but those quotes are only besed on opinions of people who have read the media stories and believe all they see on TV or read in papers. I know people who work in the industry and I know the facts. Trust me - technology is used whenever possible, but it is no way near good enough yet to simulate the immensely complicated inner-workings of the living body.
The first quote in that list is just ridiculus. They do not "beat monkeys up". Did you know that the lab researchers use highly qualified veterinarians to asess all the animals health to ensure their living conditions and welfare are suitable. Labs need to pass regulations and standards - it would be illegal to beat the animals up - the lab would be shut down and the researchers fined or given prizon sentances. And anyway - there is no point in testing on a mistreated animal because the best test results are found when used on an animal that is healthy so as to ensure it is only the drug testing that is causing side-effects.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dear Couramours...re. penicillin (gateway to antibiotics, the most important medicine for humans), here is what two of the three men awarded the nobel prize for its discovery had to say (from americans for medical advancement www.curedisease.com)..."To begin with we might question the role of mice based on statements by Flemming himself:
How fortunate we didnβt have these animal tests in the 1940βs, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized. [7]
And from Florey:
Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests [by Florey and Chain] because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to
try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man. [8] (Emphasis added)
His statement was reinforced by Koppanyi and Avery [9].
Fleming re-discovered penicillin and proceeded to test it in vitro and in vivo on rabbits and mice (he mentions the rabbits in his original paper). The in vitro results showed promise, as did topical application on rabbits. But when given systemically, the rabbits metabolized it too rapidly and led Fleming to believe it would be ineffective for humans when administered systemically that is by mouth or intravenously. Therefore he put the life saving antibiotic on the shelf and essentially forgot about it. He did occasionally use it on topical infections but never even tried it on humans with systemic infections.
Some have criticized Flemming for not trying penicillin systemically on humans. His reluctance was based on the rabbit study. Weisse:
[Fleming was discouraged about penicillinβs possible use because first . . . ] Third, after injection into an ear vein of a rabbit and with blood samples taken periodically thereafter for testing, it was found that penicillin was rapidly removed from the bloodstream. Samples taken at 30 minutes were found almost completely devoid of activity. Of what use might be an antibacterial agent that took several hours to act but was removed from the body within 30 minutes and inhibited by the blood with which it would obviously be mixing? [10]
Steffee states:
Flemming considered penicillin a potential chemotherapeutic agent, but his early in-vivo investigations were discouraging. In rabbits, serum levels of penicillin dropped rapidly after parenteral administration, too fast to allow the several hours of contact with bacteria required for an effect in vitro. [6]
The rabbits excreted penicillin in their urine so rapidly Flemming did not think the drug would be effective. A believer in animal models being predictive, he assumed that humans would react like rabbits. This mistake cost lives! Unfortunately, the same mindset is still costly lives. Steffee, for example, defends Flemingβs laying penicillin aside based on the rabbit work stating: ββ¦how many therapeutic modalities with the poor in vivo results of Flemingβs early penicillin trials would be offered continued funding today [6]?β
re. vaccines polio research was delayed by 25 years because chimpanzees can be given polio only via the respiratory system, humans get it via the digestive system. animal derived vaccines harm humans, similar animal based setbacks for other vaccines.
Open-heart surgery is a classic example of surgery that was successful on dogs and fatal to humans. The procedure depends on the heart-lung machine, which tested well on dogs and killed the first human patients. It was later modified according to human clinical observation and is now used successfully every day.
stem cells, i presume you mean human stem cells, are useful as they are applicable to humans so the insurmountable problem of species difference which applies to all animal 'research' is overcome.
Please show a CAUSAL relationship between animal experimentation and an advancement in human health, not simply a casual one. ie animal exp. occurred, later there was an advancement in human health. Using this form of argument i could say that hula hoops or yo yo's caused space travel, ie one came before the other. retrospective and selective reference to particular animal experiments and failure to mention the failures (the majority of animal experiments) is also not meaningful.
Im pleased tha animals are being looked after at your lab however this is not indicative of what occurs overall, even the official stats indicate that most animals wil suffer pain, often during a procedure. those of us who have seen film in labs have seen animals being held with restraining devices more often than not, needless to say this does not happen in human surgery.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yeah, I'm SO grateful for penicillin! I hardly know anyone who can even use it/isn't deathly allergic to it, including myself! Such a useful product. NOT.
π: 0 β©: 0
"The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" Dr Ralph Haywood, former Scientific director of huntington life sciences. It is time to stop pretending that this is science. Animal experimentation is also a crime against humans. Strychnine, cyanide, arsenic, botulin, asbestos, HIV infected blood, DDT, benzene, cigarettes all pass animal βtestsβ. Carcinogens, pollutants, teratogens, neurotixins etc also pass.
Animal exp. (vivisection) causes human illness in 2 major ways. Firstly, anything and everything will pass an animal test irrespective of what damage it does to humans and the environment. This provides legal protection to the manufacturers or polluters but not physical protection to consumers. Largely as a result of this fraudulent testing humans now have 30,000 diseases.
Secondly, once we have these incresing new and old diseases the research is almost entirely animal based, therefore no diseases are cured. 60 million animals a year killed in medical βresearchβ and not a single diseases, and there are 30,000 to choose from, cured year after year.
There are over 400 real scientific methods, they are no alternatives to an. ex. because they actually work.
π: 0 β©: 0
i feel that if its for medical reasons and they go out of their way to make sure the animal feels little to no pain then that should be accepted BUT if its for something as stupid as makeup or food then even if the animal cant feel pain it shouldent be allowed i mean take dogs for example chocolate is bad for them if they eat enough it can kill them however with people the worst that could happen is they get sick for a day or two so the test with animals on candy is pointless
but my parents raise dogs and ALOT of medicine that people use can be used for the dogs and other animals to so testing behind that would have some good reasons
makeup no just not at all if they want something stupid like that they need to test it on themselves plus rats and rabits have fur all over their body so their skin is completely different from ours
lol sorry bout the long comment XD felt like typeing
π: 0 β©: 0
firstly im stickin that in my journal, secondly id hate to see my very ow puss cat smudge being tested on...with NO painkillers!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
State your evidence that they open animals without painkillers.
π: 0 β©: 1
They do a lot of sick stuff to animals; biology class in high school proved this. 
π: 0 β©: 1
What videos? Most of those animals in your biology class are dead anyway.
π: 0 β©: 1
We were shown videos of inside animal testing labs. Seriously, think about it: some creature places you in a test tube you barely can fit in, let alone breath and/or move, and then subjects you to a substance that is horrifically harmful. That's only the first part. Or how about some creature comes and straps you down to a bed and then forces you to breathe up to a whole pack of cigarettes (but you don't know what they are, it's just you are near suffocating due to the smoke), to give you lung cancer. You have tears coming out of your eyes as you look at one of the creatures standing next to you. If you can - and I do not mean this as an insult or a shot - think outside of the box and really think about it; if you can, I don't think you'd find it very pleasant either. And sadly, these are two examples of the more 'tame' experimentations done. Yes, my animals in high school were dead (thank the gods!) but, still... To live and die for some experiment. Granted, humans have done that to other humans too... 
π: 0 β©: 2
and some pet owners abuse their pets, do all people that keep (species) bad owners?
π: 0 β©: 1
No, I'm not saying that; and you're right, there are those that abuse the animals they say they love - or at least they have taken some sort of oath to take care of and shelter.
π: 0 β©: 0
How old were these animals? Most animals that I know of such as horses used for glue and other things related were old and pretty much knocking on heaven's door. I bet the videos you saw were probably whored out by PETA. I get sick of hearing this crap. "Those animals are being hurt noes!!" D: Those animals are used for science. Yes it's rather sad, but I don't particularly care. And as for the humans doing that to humans thing? They were most likely volunteers, it's nothing new.
π: 0 β©: 1
No.
We do it purposely, knowing the results are deadly.
And people are not given the choice.
Read:
[link]
Well... I'm not going to try and make you care. That's up to you.
I will fight for the animals though, even if all I can do is support the people who can do more physically.
It's terrible. And no, it was not PETA videos.
My point is: other lives do not need to be sacrificed for human kind, especially when it does no real good.
After all the testing, most of the medicines we have carry health risks worse than the conditions they are supposed to help!
π: 0 β©: 1
LOL, that happened 60 years ago! XD Try something more current.
You don't have to apologize because your arguments are far from coersive, except from your sentimental blindness.
They weren't from PETA? Why don't you prove it?
Your point is stupid. How do you expect humanity to advance if they don't experiment?
I believe I had a similar argument with another individual regarding medicines that have "negative affects." Some medicines CAN cause Cancer, but no actual proof that taking a medicine means you are going to get this or any other types of diseases. Do your research more carefully next time.
π: 0 β©: 1
My points are my own, not 'stupid'. While I have hope for humanity, there are some things that leave me quite hopeless indeed. Such a thing as this are one of them.
Well I cannot prove the videos weren't from PETA, but I know my teacher. He wasn't that way. He even told me that's how it was, when I told him I didn't like watching such stuff. The dog story was from his own personal experience. He also told of other stuff he experienced when in the labs.
*sigh* I didn't say they were going to give you any side effects, the point is that some of the side effects are worse than the problem itself. No one really knows who is going to suffer a side effect, unless it's based on an already present problem (liver or kidney problems).
60 years ago, or 6 days ago, the point is that it happened. It shows that humans can do and will do horrible things to each other. I don't like that. I don't like humans doing horrible things to any living creature. (And before you say anything, I am not a vegan. I don't mind eating meat, I mind how that meat is procured.)
So everything I've said, whether or not you believe I'm blind, is valid. It comes down to views. You and I differ.
π: 0 β©: 2
that is what people want though right? test on humans right? only if they want it?
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't understand why we cannot figure out what is poisonous to the human body, leaving animals out of it all together, and then figure medicines using those chemicals we know to not be poisonous, or only the amounts that are non-poisonous. Too much of anything is poisonous, in the long run.
π: 0 β©: 0
I wasn't going to accuse you of anything! XD
"Hope for humanity" Don't tell me you're one of those Misanthropes? You think humans shouldn't hurt animals but it's awwright for an animal to hurt another animal right? Humans are animals so I don't really see the difference.
True but if something happened long ago it's less likely to happen in the times of now because of individual rights.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, you do have a point there about rights and such.
No, I - am not really sure what to call myself. I'm not unrealistic, I do understand that nature is not pretty in truth. I just - think humans make it harder than it needs to be.
Anyhow, I know I jump in there to some people with my own comments. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Well that sort of thinking isn't really healthy. Just saying.
No i'm not really offended, just amazed that I got a reply to this really old comment! XD
π: 0 β©: 0
The best thing to do is to stop supporting products that test on animals (like covergirl, colgate etc) and to demand the companies to stop!
π: 0 β©: 0
Human experimentation is just as horrid (take Unit 731, for example).
It's just not as known to the public as animal experimentation.
Bah. People, man...
π: 0 β©: 1
After reading =Couramours comment, my opinion has changed.
Animal experimentation is a necessary evil... though, if they are treated in the way that =Couramours had stated, I can rest easy.
Unit 731, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, humans are cruel to their own kind.
π: 0 β©: 0
Animals are way better than people. Thank you for this stamp!
π: 0 β©: 0
Why do companies do animal testing, anyway? Does anyone know?
π: 0 β©: 1
To make sure the product is safe for humans
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay. So what should we suggest to do instead of testing it on animals to make sure it's safe? What's the alternative, and is it just as good? I mean, we can't test it on humans, can we?
π: 0 β©: 1
They are alternatives but these have been criticized for being too inaccurate and outdated.
π: 0 β©: 1
They have been able to clone human tissue... And I guess to test on humans (WHO DECIDED TO BE TESTED KNOWING THE RISKS. NOT FORCED.)
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, but let's be honest - not a lot of people are going to volunteer for that sort of thing. Likewise, the cloned human tissue is a good idea, but unless we can start mass producing human tissue like that, we're still sort of up the creek without a paddle. I definitely support looking into more ways of alternatives, but I understand that it's going to be a slow process and that we can't just flip a switch, and suddenly, all of the poor, subjugated bunnies run free from the labs, and all is well and good. I know it sounds shitty to say it, but it's practical.
Cosmetics, however, are a different thing. Medical stuff. Sure. Cleaning supplies? Well, okay. Cosmetics? No. Definitely not. No poor animal should have to suffer because a spoiled brat preteen girl wants to look pretty in pink lipgloss. That is just plain WRONG. >.<;;;
π: 0 β©: 0
Humans are too lazy to come up with alternative ways. Animals live on this earth and have feelings. We are not much different. Why do we do this? Why don't you put yourself in their paws for once...
I love animals
π: 0 β©: 0
Should animals be used to test beauty products and other things that really don't need to be tested? No. That kind of testing should be done away with.
Should animals be used to find the cure for forms of cancer and other sicknesses and diseases? YES. I don't see how you can say they shouldn't. I'd rather some random animal die because it was being tested so we could find a cure for cancer rather than my uncle die because no animals were tested because other people thought that would be "mean" to the animals.
π: 0 β©: 1
That "random animal" may not be just a "random animal" to other people. And you're just a "random human" to nearly everyone on the planet.
Food for thought.
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>