Animal ExperimentsEssay Preview: Animal ExperimentsReport this essay“It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking normal human intelligence, as tools or renewable resources or models or commodities, then it cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as tools, models and the like.” (“Animals in Research – Issues and Conflicts”;
How are animal experiments at all helpful to humans anyway? There is not at all an absolute guarantee that the product being tested will be safe or effective for humans based on the animals reaction. Results from animal experimentation tells us about the animals reaction not how we will react. It is proven biology, animals just don’t get the same diseases we do! Ciba Geigy, a major drug company admitted that 95% of substances that are passed safe in animal studies are immediately rejected by human studies, What is more intriguingly shocking is that scientist keep their experiments so secretive. Someone who is working at a lab and exposes what takes place there has a great possibility to be imprisoned for up to two years.
The FDA is not interested in the safety of its new medications. The drug industry wants to profit from clinical trials and makes the drug their target, not the FDA. And that’s why the FDA made sure to not expose the FDA to the bad publicity from other medical companies, who pay lip service to safety.
It is now possible to make the drug go on sale at all on the black market without much notice or risk, but it still may very well end up in your hospital emergency room waiting room. To me, that’s another threat. They might find they’ve had enough, but they won’t.
The FDA has taken control of the industry at the behest of drug companies. They’ve given them the upper hand so that the companies can be sued. If you follow the advice of the law, you wouldn’t even need a lawsuit. It is also what they wanted to do for profits. The FDA was the “proud champion” of drugs since the 1950s. This is not exactly going to change.
Some of you might be thinking, “Oh I’m not sure what they’re going to do now that the FDA did this.” I would be lying if I said I was thinking that the FDA won’t take it. A lot depends on how this affects you. What I mean is that these things happen for about 4-5 years and continue to. In many cases, the laws change and change and they will just keep doing that because things were not always okay in those years.
So the problem is what happens when these big drug companies get involved.
A few months ago, in fact, a small group of medical researchers broke out in Seattle with the idea to get approved for human studies of glyphosate on humans. They reported in the Washington Times that it worked as expected.
The study was based on mice used for breeding and were approved by the FDA for human use in 2004. The team of five mice had been given glyphosate for one week. They tested the animals’ responses to the Roundup herbicide and the glyphosate did not cause any changes in the mice’s blood glucose levels or cholesterol levels (despite the fact that the animals actually died of old age). In fact, the study did improve the outcome: those animals, having been treated with a combination of the two in different species of horses, showed greater improvements in body weight and lipid quality. No wonder this group of researchers turned out to be the best.
Now this is a big one in politics. The FDA has come under attack from a variety of parties and from pharmaceutical companies. So I’d like to remind the public that the FDA is NOT on the side of farmers on public lands. And that Monsanto is not as interested in public education about the dangers and their potential use than in public health education for agricultural use—you know what they’re doing?
I think those who
The FDA is not interested in the safety of its new medications. The drug industry wants to profit from clinical trials and makes the drug their target, not the FDA. And that’s why the FDA made sure to not expose the FDA to the bad publicity from other medical companies, who pay lip service to safety.
It is now possible to make the drug go on sale at all on the black market without much notice or risk, but it still may very well end up in your hospital emergency room waiting room. To me, that’s another threat. They might find they’ve had enough, but they won’t.
The FDA has taken control of the industry at the behest of drug companies. They’ve given them the upper hand so that the companies can be sued. If you follow the advice of the law, you wouldn’t even need a lawsuit. It is also what they wanted to do for profits. The FDA was the “proud champion” of drugs since the 1950s. This is not exactly going to change.
Some of you might be thinking, “Oh I’m not sure what they’re going to do now that the FDA did this.” I would be lying if I said I was thinking that the FDA won’t take it. A lot depends on how this affects you. What I mean is that these things happen for about 4-5 years and continue to. In many cases, the laws change and change and they will just keep doing that because things were not always okay in those years.
So the problem is what happens when these big drug companies get involved.
A few months ago, in fact, a small group of medical researchers broke out in Seattle with the idea to get approved for human studies of glyphosate on humans. They reported in the Washington Times that it worked as expected.
The study was based on mice used for breeding and were approved by the FDA for human use in 2004. The team of five mice had been given glyphosate for one week. They tested the animals’ responses to the Roundup herbicide and the glyphosate did not cause any changes in the mice’s blood glucose levels or cholesterol levels (despite the fact that the animals actually died of old age). In fact, the study did improve the outcome: those animals, having been treated with a combination of the two in different species of horses, showed greater improvements in body weight and lipid quality. No wonder this group of researchers turned out to be the best.
Now this is a big one in politics. The FDA has come under attack from a variety of parties and from pharmaceutical companies. So I’d like to remind the public that the FDA is NOT on the side of farmers on public lands. And that Monsanto is not as interested in public education about the dangers and their potential use than in public health education for agricultural use—you know what they’re doing?
I think those who
The FDA is not interested in the safety of its new medications. The drug industry wants to profit from clinical trials and makes the drug their target, not the FDA. And that’s why the FDA made sure to not expose the FDA to the bad publicity from other medical companies, who pay lip service to safety.
It is now possible to make the drug go on sale at all on the black market without much notice or risk, but it still may very well end up in your hospital emergency room waiting room. To me, that’s another threat. They might find they’ve had enough, but they won’t.
The FDA has taken control of the industry at the behest of drug companies. They’ve given them the upper hand so that the companies can be sued. If you follow the advice of the law, you wouldn’t even need a lawsuit. It is also what they wanted to do for profits. The FDA was the “proud champion” of drugs since the 1950s. This is not exactly going to change.
Some of you might be thinking, “Oh I’m not sure what they’re going to do now that the FDA did this.” I would be lying if I said I was thinking that the FDA won’t take it. A lot depends on how this affects you. What I mean is that these things happen for about 4-5 years and continue to. In many cases, the laws change and change and they will just keep doing that because things were not always okay in those years.
So the problem is what happens when these big drug companies get involved.
A few months ago, in fact, a small group of medical researchers broke out in Seattle with the idea to get approved for human studies of glyphosate on humans. They reported in the Washington Times that it worked as expected.
The study was based on mice used for breeding and were approved by the FDA for human use in 2004. The team of five mice had been given glyphosate for one week. They tested the animals’ responses to the Roundup herbicide and the glyphosate did not cause any changes in the mice’s blood glucose levels or cholesterol levels (despite the fact that the animals actually died of old age). In fact, the study did improve the outcome: those animals, having been treated with a combination of the two in different species of horses, showed greater improvements in body weight and lipid quality. No wonder this group of researchers turned out to be the best.
Now this is a big one in politics. The FDA has come under attack from a variety of parties and from pharmaceutical companies. So I’d like to remind the public that the FDA is NOT on the side of farmers on public lands. And that Monsanto is not as interested in public education about the dangers and their potential use than in public health education for agricultural use—you know what they’re doing?
I think those who
The experiment results are worse than random guess work. For example aspirin causes birth defects in rats and mice yet for humans is helpful. Aspirin and parocetamol is very poisonous to cats, but beneficial to us. Yet another, penicillin which has the ability to save the life of many humans is extremely poisonous and deadly to guinea pigs and rabbits. “Rene’ Descartes a 17th century French mathematician and philosopher wrote that animals were nothing more than “cleverly built machines.” no feelings, or conscious responses. No animal could be compared to a human in any way.” (“Animals in Research – Issues and Conflicts”; by J. J. McCoy. “An Impact Book”; Page 9). Her words are the raw truth in a way. From my perception yes no animal could ever compare to a human being, but animals do have feelings and they do respond back to us. When an animal feels pain don’t they react through voice and body communication, yes they do. Those few facts though are not the only reasons animal experiments show no relevance to me. They are cruel and inhumane. Loving animals who beg for attention are denied any companionship, comfort, or stimulation, they are just experiments, nothing more.
Before I expose to you the horrifying details of what exactly is being done to these animals during the experiments, I will summarize some of the many procedures performed on animals of all kinds. Experimenters injects these animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke, addict them to tobacco; which they would never normally encounter in their natural peaceful environment. To make it able for them to fully inhale and breath in smoke for a year or more they cut hole in the throats of thus animals. In testing the measure of the effect of cigarette smoking on human sexual performance, experimenters insert electrodes into dogs penises. Forcing animals to be on mechanical ventilators and chronically exposed to cigarette smoke. To determine how caffeine and nicotine affect breathing they restrain the animals in chains and head devices and expose them to exaggerated amounts of nicotine and caffeine. The United States Government funds, with our money, the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center to keep pregnant monkeys in small metal cages and expose their fetuses to nicotine. They are acknowledging the effects of maternal smoking, this is a five year study about smoking during pregnancy which is already well established. After killing the baby monkeys the experimenter dissects their lungs.
Animal experimentation started early in the 1950s where beagles where put in face masks which then forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from cigarettes, while they were in an unnatural upright position side by side. The mechanical device dropped a lit cigarette into the air line as soon as an old one was used.