we've got signatures, help us get to 1,000
PLEASE START BY WATCHING THESE VIDEOS TO SEE WHAT I MEAN:
"...Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans...In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability.
--Herbert Gundersheimer, M.D., member, PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine), Baltimore, Maryland, 1988
Doctors who speak out in favour of vivisection do not deserve any recognition in society, all the more so since their brutality is apparent not only during such experiments, but also in their practical medical lives. They are mostly men who stop at nothing in order to satisfy their ruthless and unfeeling lust for honours and gain.
--Dr. med. Hugo Knecht, Ear, Nose, Throat and Chest Specialist, Linz, October 5, 1909
Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.
--George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925) ..." (quoted from:http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/quotes5.htm)
"...Life is equal whatever who it is.Dogs,cats,rabbits,horses,sheeps,even ants have their own life.As long as they have their consciousness,they should be respected totally,especially the animals who can communicate with human like dogs,monkeys,and so on.
However,in the Medical research institutions,someone take animals testing to prove how effective about some new medician. The mouses and rabbits are often the victims.Who can consider their feelings?All about these is so horrible.
There are many ways to improve the development of medicle.Did it must take some inocent life away?Is it fair for them? Why human must so selfish to get the adventage from other lifes?We are all members of the nature.Let%u2019s learn to respect the other animals who living with us together on the earth..." (http://blog.adreamforabetterworld.com/category/atrocities/crimes-against-nature/animal-testing/)
I do not which for animals to suffer extreme pain and suffering to produce any medicine, any scientist can tell you why, but here are some reasons not to:
1.Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.
2. Studies have suggested that %u2018micro-dosing%u2019 (where only a tiny amount of a product is given to a human through the skin) could be a new and very effective alternative to animal experiments 7. The recent news that scientists have grown a small piece of human liver tissue from stem cells could also mean that it may one day be possible to perform initial 'human' safety trials in a lab.
3. Pain and suffering still occur, and simply being in captivity can cause great distress to an animal, just as it would to a human. Plus, animal testing facilities cannot be monitored at all times, so the sort of treatment animals receive on a daily basis can never truly be known.
OTHER, WELL BASED REASONS:
Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering as possible, and that alternatives to animal testing need to be developed. The "three Rs",first described by Russell and Burch in 1959, are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries:
Two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. However, some claim they are not true alternatives since simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cultured cells often require animal derived products, such as serum. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems. Other alternatives, not subject to this criticism, involve the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects.
Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use. For example, cultured cells have been developed to create monoclonal antibodies, prior to this production required animals to undergo a procedure likely to cause pain and distress.
Human skin equivalent tests can be used to replace animal-based corrosive studies. Two products, EpiDerm and EpiSkin are derived from human skin cells which have been cultured to produce a model of human skin. These methods are currently accepted replacements in Canada and the European Union. Another synthetic replacement uses a protein membrane to simulate a skin barrier and is approved as a partial replacement by the US Department of Transportation and European Union.
Several tissue culture methods which measure the rate of chemical absorption by the skin have been approved by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), although they have not yet been approved as a replacement in the US.
Phototoxicity is a rash, swelling or inflammation, like a severe sunburn, caused by exposure to light following exposure to a chemical. The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) Phototoxicity Test, approved by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), detects the viability of 3T3 cells after exposure to a chemical in the presence or absence of light. Although originally derived from a mouse embryo, the 3T3 cell line was developed in 1962.
A skinpatch test has been designed and is used in Canada to measure development of rashes, inflammation, swelling or abnormal tissue growth on human volunteers. Unlike corrosives, irritants cause only reversible skin damage.
Pyrogens are most often pharmaceutical products or intravenous drugs that may cause inflammation or fever when they interact with immune system cells. This interaction can be quickly and accurately tested in vitro using donated human blood.
It is done in America for example, people test some medicines and get payed for it. THIS IS MUCH MORE RELIABLE TESTING THAN ANIMAL TESTING!
Examples of computer simulations available include models of diabetes, asthma, and drug absorption, though potential new medicines identified using these techniques are currently still required to be verified in animal and human tests before licensing. Computer operated mannequins, also known as crash test dummies, complete with internal sensors and video, have replaced live animal trauma testing for automobile crash testing.
AT THESE WEBSITES WE CAN SEE THE ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMALS TESTING: