What do people have against PETA?

[Bro. Curtis]

Johnv, my mother-in-law has a pig valve in her heart.

ARTICLE

The idea that medical and scientific research can be advanced – without laboratory animals – is completely false. Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century. From dialysis to organ transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to dopamine replacement, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals.

Much of what we know about AIDS and how to treat it is the result of research with lab animals including non-human primates, chickens, cats and rodents. Studies with rats and mice continue to provide invaluable data in the fields of breast cancer and heart disease research. Animal studies have also been instrumental in achieving better understanding of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and treatments for drug addiction....

Read the whole thing.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Jim, (I will not call you King James, ever) if you're going to call me an animal, then the conversation is over.

 

[OCC]

Much of what we know about AIDS and how to treat it is the result of research with lab animals including non-human primates, chickens, cats and rodents. Studies with rats and mice continue to provide invaluable data in the fields of breast cancer and heart disease research. Animal studies have also been instrumental in achieving better understanding of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and treatments for drug addiction....

Did these studies involve cruelty?

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Jim, (I will not call you King James, ever) if you're going to call me an animal, then the conversation is over.

Well since you show such disrespect towards me, the conversation is over anyway. I don't recall calling you an animal. Where did I do that? I SAID..and get this RIGHT..if we experiment on animals then we ARE animals otherwise why would we bother? Your job is to show me I am wrong. If you persist in misquoting me I will write you off as you have done me. good riddance

 

[OCC]

BTW...my name ain't "Jim", Curt.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by King James:
Bro.Curtis...did that involve cruel treatment? If not, that's fine. If it did then we have a God we can pray to to heal something or to protect us from getting sick in the first place.

But...I didn't know we cured chicken pox. My three nephews all had it in a span of a few weeks.

Notice how I tried to cordial with you CURT. I have YET to see the same from YOU!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Did these studies involve cruelty?

<edited per PM request - LE>

[ August 04, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But...I didn't know we cured chicken pox. My three nephews all had it in a span of a few weeks.

I meant smallpox. My mistake.

And you are correct, it didn't need to be said (the "Jim" thing). I apologize for that.

Now, you started this whole argument between the two of us, on page one. You jumped on something I said. So please stop crying about how you are treated. It's tiresome.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

if we experiment on animals then we ARE animals

I support experimenting on animals.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Animals in medical research


Pre 1900s

TREATMENT FOR RABIES
Deadly disease marked by convulsions and death; afflicts wild and domestic animals; can be transmitted to humans. Species studied: dogs, rabbits.

TREATMENT FOR SMALLPOX
One of the world's most dreaded plagues, estimated to have caused two million deaths. Species studies: cows.

TREATMENT FOR ANTHRAX
Disease marked by rise in body temperature, followed by depression, spasms, respiratory or cardiac distress, convulsions, and death. Devastating epidemics were recorded up until the twentieth century. Species studied: sheep.

1900s

CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION TECHNIQUES
A procedure which allows doctors to insert a flexible tube into an artery or vein to the heart, used for injecting drugs directly into the heart to measure blood flow and pressure, diagnose and treat congenital heart disease and narrowed passages. Species studied: dogs, rabbits.

TREATMENT FOR RICKETS
Vitamin D deficiency causes defective bone growth in infants and children. Species studied: dogs.

1920s

DISCOVERY OF INSULIN
To control diabetes, a chronic disease of the pancreas marked by the inability to utilize carbohydrates, excess sugar in the blood and urine, excessive thirst, hunger and urination, weakness and emaciation; can cause blindness and death. Species studied: dogs.

1930s

DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN ANESTHESIA
Allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Species studied: dogs.

PREVENTION OF TETANUS
Also called lockjaw, an acute infectious disease of humans and other animals characterized by painful muscle spasms and convulsions. Species studied: horses.

DEVELOPMENT OF ANTICOAGULANTS
Drugs that inhibit action of blood clotting factors that, in excess can cause clots, phlebitis, embolisms and lead to death. Species studied: cats.

1940s

TREATMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
A disease in which the connective tissues of the body become inflamed; cause is still unknown, although medications relieve pain and control inflammation. Species studied: rabbits, monkeys.

DISCOVERY OF THE RH FACTOR
The ability to detect the Rh antigen in red blood cells marked a breakthrough in the immunology of pregnancy. Species studied: rhesus monkeys.

PREVENTION OF DIPHTHERIA
An acute contagious disease marked by formation of membranes in the throat and other air passages, causing difficulty breathing, high fever, weakness and often death. Species studied: horses.

ANTIBIOTICS
Development of penicillin and other broad-spectrum antibiotics revolutionized the treatment of bacterial infection in humans and other animals. Species studied: many, including rats, mice and rabbits.

TREATMENT FOR WHOOPING COUGH
Also called pertussis, among the most acute infections of children; a highly communicable respiratory disease characterized by short, dry coughs; serious complications include convulsions and brain damage. Species studied: guinea pigs and rabbits.

1950s

PREVENTION OF POLIO
A disease marked by symptoms ranging from mild infection to extensive paralysis; in 1952, nearly 58,000 cases were reported in the U.S. alone; today, the disease has been eradicated in the Western Hemisphere, and it is hoped that it will be eliminated worldwide by the end of the 20th century. Species studied: rabbits, monkeys, rodents.

DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN HEART SURGERY AND CARDIAC PACEMAKER
Revolutionized treatment for people suffering from severe heart disease. Species studied: dogs.

DEVELOPMENT OF CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY
Can bring about remission of certain cancers, either short-term or permanently. Species studied: monkeys, rabbits and rodents.

DISCOVERY OF TRANQUILIZERS
Chemical compounds to reduce hyperactivity, anxiety and tension. Species studied: rats, rabbits and monkeys.

1960s

DEVELOPMENT OF LITHIUM
For prevention of manic depressive illness and recurrent depression. Species studied: rats and guinea pigs.

PREVENTION OF RUBELLA
An epidemic viral disease marked by low fever, rash, enlarged lymph glands; can cause severe fetal defects in pregnant women. Species studied: monkeys.

1970s

PREVENTION OF MEASLES
An acute contagious viral disease, once common in childhood, marked by fever and skin eruptions. Can cause death. Species studied: monkeys.

TREATMENT FOR LEPROSY
A chronic infectious disease marked by severe paralysis, ulceration, nutritional disturbances, gangrene and mutilation. Species studied: monkeys, armadillos.

ADVANCES IN CARDIOLOGY
Including measurement of coronary blood flow, myocardial preservation techniques, and heart bypass techniques. Species studied: dogs.

1980s

DEVELOPMENT OF MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES
FOR TREATING DISEASES
Marked a milestone in the use of antibodies as diagnostic or therapeutic tools to target specific disease cells. Species studied: mice and rabbits.

ORGAN TRANSPLANT ADVANCES
Surgical and medical advances such as anti-rejection drugs to enable heart, liver, lung and other transplants to succeed. Species studied: dogs, sheep, cows and pigs.

1990s

LAPROSCOPIC SURGICAL TECHNIQUES
Minimally invasive surgery vastly reduces the hospital stay of patients, for example, gall bladder patients now go home the same day, rather than facing hospitalization of a week or more. Patients can now return to work in 2-7 days instead of 4-6 weeks. Species studied: pigs.

BREAST CANCER LINKS
Scientists are closing in on the genetic and environmental factors of breast cancer, the leading cause of death of American women ages
35 - 54. Species studied: fruitflies, mice and rats.

GENE THERAPY FOR CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Clinical trials are underway in the first step towards curing a disease that threatens the lives of 30,000 children and young adults in the U.S. If successful, the research could lead to a similar approach for genetic diseases such as Duchenne's muscular dystrophy and sickle cell anemia. Species studied: mice and primates.

2000

HUMAN GENOME SEQUENCED The genetic map of human beings followed earlier successful sequencing of two lower animals. The sequencing launched a new field of scientific inquiry, comparative genomics, which provides greater understanding of how humans are similar and different from other species. Such information allows scientists to know with greater accuracy than ever the translational potential from research with animals. Species studied: Drosphila (fruit fly), C elegans (nemotode, a worm), and human beings.

2001

1st MOLECULARLY TARGETED CANCER DRUG
Approved to treat a rare leukemia (and later, gastric stromal tumors), Gleevec is a medical milestone in targeting a biochemical error that produces cancer. Species studied: chickens, Drosophila, mice.

CELL-CYCLE REGULATORS
The 2001 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to three scientists whose discoveries provided an understanding of key molecular regulators of the cell cycle. Scientists believe that understanding these regulators could lead to new cancer treatments. Species studied: sea urchins and others.

PIG MODEL OF DIABETES Diabetic pigs provide for the first time a reliable model for diabetic heart disease and give researchers a chance to test experimental new drugs and to try to control complications, such as a heart vessel closing up after balloon catheterization.
Species studied: pigs

2002

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Targeting two genes implicated in multiple sclerosis (MS), scientists were able to identify an antibody receptor and growth stimulating factor to decrease symptoms of an MS-like condition. Species studied: mice.

LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE
OR AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS)
The antibiotic, minocycline, delayed the onset of Lou Gehrig's disease and slowed its progression in mice, suggesting a new treatment approach for people. Researchers studied mice with a version of ALS created by genetic mutations. Species studied: mice

LINK

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
But...I didn't know we cured chicken pox. My three nephews all had it in a span of a few weeks.

I meant smallpox. My mistake.

And you are correct, it didn't need to be said (the "Jim" thing). I apologize for that.

Now, you started this whole argument between the two of us, on page one. You jumped on something I said. So please stop crying about how you are treated. It's tiresome.

No...I did not start it. In FACT, I have explained over and over again ad nauseum what I meant from the beginning, what my point was and what I was trying to accomplish. I am not going to explain it again...it's there in black and white for people to see. So I should not care how I am treated? Ok. I will remember that...when someone whines because I am a little blunt with them. Deal?

Thank you for your apology. I accept it.

 

[OCC]

I will say again: "I SAID..and get this RIGHT..if we experiment on animals then we ARE animals otherwise why would we bother?"

Please get back to me when you understand what I am saying here. I don't think I can explain it any clearer than I have.

For the record I will modify my opinion. I do not support animal experimentation when any type of cruelty is involved. It's a small step up from animals to experimenting on other people.

God says a righteous man cares for his animal (do not ask me for Scripture, I am not in the mood to be provoked and have my salvation questioned for not giving a reference when most everyone on here knows it is in the Bible
, it has been a long and sad day and I don't have 3,500 verses memorized). Ghandi I believe, said something to the effect that you can tell how civilized a nation is by how it treats it's animals. I don't think I will change my opinion.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Still sounds like yer calling us animals, dude, because we experimemnt on animals. Maybe I'm just dumb, eh ?

It's a small step up from animals to experimenting on other people.

That's crazy talk.

God says a righteous man cares for his animal (do not ask me for Scripture, I am not in the mood to be provoked and have my salvation questioned for not giving a reference when most everyone on here knows it is in the Bible
, it has been a long and sad day and I don't have 3,500 verses memorized).

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Ghandi I believe, said something to the effect that you can tell how civilized a nation is by how it treats it's animals. I don't think I will change my opinion.

You mean the Ghandi(s) that were murdered by their own people ?

I'll bet the last thing he's worried about now is how America treats it's beef.

And how 'bout that list, eh ? Animal experimenting probably saved the life of at least one person you love. Man, that list even suprised me.

[ August 05, 2005, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[emeraldctyangel]

Originally posted by King James:
Didnt like the implication? That was not an implication - it was someone stating their choice of not participating in something they feel does not fully comply with their value system.

emeraldcity said: "When did making a personal choice to not commit, comply, participate, or endorse a group become wrong wrong wrong? And why does anyone need to justify their reasoning?

PETA is laughable on their stand in many things, and one more notably hilarious is the Kentucky Fried Chicken thing. To take a stand for all those poor chickens..."

First, it was an implication. That is a fact. Second, they need to justify their reasoning because that IS the goal in a rational discussion which is what I wanted in the first place. But I will remember that statement of yours when you want me to back up anything I say.

As for the stand for all those poor chickens...you are clueless...and it was comments like that that was part of the inspiration for me to write this thread and ask this question. Thank you for answering it so succinctly.

*puts hands on hips, taps foot, and DEMANDS AN APOLOGY!*

There are never enough "personal attack editing fairies" when you need them, are there?

Clueless huh? Well at least I can look up a website properly. Had you that ability dear Jimmy, you would see that KFC is their biggest effort in their own little lunatic world. But like I have told you before, it is your fantasy. Whatever.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Still sounds like yer calling us animals, dude, because we experimemnt on animals. Maybe I'm just dumb, eh ?

Biologically speaking, we are animals, mammals.

It's a small step up from animals to experimenting on other people.

That's crazy talk.

Big step or small, we do it. No drug or medical appliance goes on the market without testing on actual people.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Daisy:
Big step or small, we do it. No drug or medical appliance goes on the market without testing on actual people.

Of course, but only after it's gone through extended examination in in vitro and animal studies. Many new drugs are eliminated in animal studies because it's determined they're too dangerous for human use or would be ineffective.

If they did not have clinical studies but instead went straight from animal studies to launching the product, in essence you'd be doing a massive human study on the population as a whole. The only way to get around human studies is to not ever launch any new products.

Besides, human studies are not like the Nazi "research." They have clear ethical guidelines that they are supposed to follow.

I support animal testing even though it at times causes suffering for the animals because without it there is no advancement. Some people would like all animal studies to be replaced with computer models, but we simply don't have enough information to be able to simulate a living system. We can model simpler things to an extent, like molecular interactions, but sooner or later you need to get into the lab and test how a drug works with an organism as a whole. Animal tests help determine the safety of a drug for testing in clinical trials. Certainly this is not foolproof, but having good animal studies starting out reduces the risk for the people who volunteer for the study.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by King James:
I am not in support of using animals for research. We have a Father in heaven who can cure cancer and so far there has been NO cure for cancer despite the hundreds of millions of dollars donated and the many animals who were most likely tortured. If we need to experiment on animals then that means we are nothing but animals ourselves. I'm sorry...I have a human heart not a pig heart. Experimentation on pig's hearts do not accomplish anything.

Did you know Hodgkin's lymphoma used to be invariably terminal, and now children with Hodgkin's lymphoma regularly have a >95% chance of surviving to five years later, and almost all of these go on to be cured?

We don't have a cure for cancer in general, but we have excellent treatments for a variety of cancers that used to be invariably deadly.

I find it kind of frightening that you'd suggest experimenting on children.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by King James:
Bingo! You got it Ken. Sin has reached as far as the medical community (they want the dollars) and the science community (they want to torture animals).

Umm, thanks for your opinion, buddy. I've never been called an animal torturer before. I have some gerbils, a fish, and a couple of cats here, guess I'd better get cracking. Time's a wasting!

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Of course, but only after it's gone through extended examination in in vitro and animal studies. Many new drugs are eliminated in animal studies because it's determined they're too dangerous for human use or would be ineffective.

Yes, and speciesist though it is, I'm all for it.

If they did not have clinical studies but instead went straight from animal studies to launching the product, in essence you'd be doing a massive human study on the population as a whole.

And the study would be invalid.

The only way to get around human studies is to not ever launch any new products.

But, but, but they haven't cured my disease yet!!!

Besides, human studies are not like the Nazi "research." They have clear ethical guidelines that they are supposed to follow.

And they usually do follow them.

I support animal testing even though it at times causes suffering for the animals because without it there is no advancement.

Yes, but these test should be done with clear, ethical guidelines such as to minimize pain and suffering, etc.

As for Kentucky Fried Chickens - well, I do eat chickens and eggs. However, chicken factories are inhumane. From a purely practical, purely selfish, purely human pov, these factories are also unhealthy, putting salmonella, artificial hormones and antibiotics into our systems.


I daresay your cats would be pleased to take over your gerbil-torturing duties. (Anyone who claims that nature is kind or that animals only kill for food, has obviously never watched a cat play with a mouse. Not that the cat intends harm; he is disappointed when the game ends).

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by emeraldctyangel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
Didnt like the implication? That was not an implication - it was someone stating their choice of not participating in something they feel does not fully comply with their value system.

emeraldcity said: "When did making a personal choice to not commit, comply, participate, or endorse a group become wrong wrong wrong? And why does anyone need to justify their reasoning?

PETA is laughable on their stand in many things, and one more notably hilarious is the Kentucky Fried Chicken thing. To take a stand for all those poor chickens..."

First, it was an implication. That is a fact. Second, they need to justify their reasoning because that IS the goal in a rational discussion which is what I wanted in the first place. But I will remember that statement of yours when you want me to back up anything I say.

As for the stand for all those poor chickens...you are clueless...and it was comments like that that was part of the inspiration for me to write this thread and ask this question. Thank you for answering it so succinctly.

*puts hands on hips, taps foot, and DEMANDS AN APOLOGY!*

There are never enough "personal attack editing fairies" when you need them, are there?

Clueless huh? Well at least I can look up a website properly. Had you that ability dear Jimmy, you would see that KFC is their biggest effort in their own little lunatic world. But like I have told you before, it is your fantasy. Whatever.

</font>[/QUOTE]I hope you weren't talking about me. I am not a personal attack editing fairy. I was gone pretty much all day. I "DEMAND" an apology!

Yes...you are clueless. Yes...I know how to look up a website properly. I didn't feel like it though. I'd rather say what I feel and watch you fire away with personal attacks.

Your Christianity has been shining through so brightly lately. YOU are the one who has made more personal attacks. You disrespected me in every paragraph above. My name is not Jimmy. Call me Jimmy again and I'll have to just sit here and laugh, count to ten and blow you a cyber kiss honey...or I will really tell you off. and we don't want that, do we?