Pro-Test: Standing Up For Science
Home > Blogs 

Last comments

In response to: No more threats, no more fear, animal research is finally here!

joseph2002 [Member]
Am glad that finally this has been finished after all these years, i believe that this will only improve life-saving research.
Good job Pro Test.
PermalinkPermalink 12/11/08 @ 19:35

In response to: Students at Freshers’ Fair show they are “Pro-Test”

curiousstudent11 [Member]
Hi, Im Scrolling through your website and im trying to decide my loyalties on the subject of animal testing. I am currently doing my english higher at college and need to complete a discursive essay on animal testing. Any help??

Thanks, Nadia X
PermalinkPermalink 05/11/08 @ 16:05

In response to: Pro-Test welcomes statistics on animal research in 2007

mintyfresh [Member]
Great news about the new statistics!

If you want to read another article by Tom have look at

Brilliant statistics as to why we should keep animal testing!
PermalinkPermalink 12/08/08 @ 11:59

In response to: Report backing primate research gets global media coverage

paul [Member]
David, you're not the only one who doesn't like lying. Indeed one of the main reasons scientist often don't like engaging in debates with anti-vivisectionists, ID proponants, anti-vaccination activists and the like is that we scientists end up having to spend most of the debate debunking the various myths and distortions our opponents use to support their arguments.

It's very frustrating when you're trying to discuss treatments for HIV/AIDS and someone repeats Peter Thatchel's favourite myth that clinical trials of the protease inhibitors by Merck were held up for four years due to toxicity in animal studies carried out in 1989. In fact the Merck protease inhibitor which failed animal tests in 1989 would almost certainly have killed any AIDS patients it was given to. Luckily in the same year (1989) the crystal structure of HIV protease became available and after four years of testing over a hundred protease inhibitors one was identified that had good anti-HIV activity in vitro and good bioavailability and acceptable toxicity profile in animal tests. This protease, Indinavir, went on to clinical trials in 1993 (Dorsey B. D. et al. J. Med. Chem.(1994)
PubMed: 7932573) and was approved for use in 1996 and became a key component of highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART).

This is just one example of what scientists have to deal with when trying to debate with anti-vivs.

Fortunately the media seem to be becoming more aware of how unreliable so-called "scientific" anti-vivisection is.
PermalinkPermalink 18/12/06 @ 15:44

In response to: Report backing primate research gets global media coverage

david wong [Visitor]
That was'nt the problem ("what it said")
although I disagree with most of what
was said. Mel didnt get a chance to
talk about this big problem at hand
(animals being imprisoned and tortured),
but the arguments did not focus on this
and as usual they were asking Mel crap questions i.e. about his prison time etc.A A very sad tactic I think! They didnt
mention all the bad points from the drug
industry etc. I dont think it was fair,
and I dont like being lied to and I
would image neither does the public!
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 16:07

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

iain [Member]
Doctors don't work on commission per drug prescribed - I have no idea what makes you think that. Looking at some of the great disease victories of the 20th century, the elimination of smallpox, the virtual elimination of polio, penicillin - I struggle to see what makes you think that these drugs are ineffective. Take a look at the improvements in cancer survivability rates on the charity Cancer Research UK's website as well. I do believe a person is more important than a rat. If you disagree fair enough, where do you draw the time? What about insects? Plants? Bacteria?
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:30

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

dianne [Visitor]
iain-I am in my fifties and am lucky enough to be completely healthy. I have never used any pharmeceutrical medicines and I know I am the more healthy for it. I have watched people such as my Mother, grow steadily worse using a cocktail of drugs prescribed by the doctor, who admitted that certain of them caused side effects which had to be remidied by prescribing yet more drugs. all she started off with was arthritis, but they soon had her on sleeping pills, tranquillisers and many years later, stronger drugs such as steriods, which made her truly ill and in my opinion finished her off. In case youre wondering why I allowed her to take them, I couldnt stop her as she wouldnt listen to me. She was too conditioned to think that the doctor knew best, and then her mind gradually too numbed. What she didnt know was that doctors work on commission, their choice of drug ruled by the incentives. As for your belief that we are more important than animals? Why do you think so? We are just another species of the animal kingdom after all. We are supposed to have higher intelligence and be able to show compassion, which seems to be a joke. It is our duty to protect those whom we have power over, dont you think? If not, it would make us monsters. If alien life takes a look at us, at our treatment not just of each other, but of the other animals on this planet, what do you think their conclusion would be.

PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:23

In response to: Founder of animal rights philosophy supports primate research

iain [Member]
Just the fact you disagree with something doesn't make it biased I'm afraid - I struggle to see in what way the documentary was biased other than because it gave lots of air time to Mel Broughton - who's a lunatic.
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:21

In response to: Report backing primate research gets global media coverage

iain [Member]
Mel Broughton got more air time than anyone else. In what way was the documentary biased? Was it just that you didn't like what it said?
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:20

In response to: Founder of animal rights philosophy supports primate research

david wong [Visitor]
Nice one Jack1, hit the nail on the head.
I think the BBC documentary was so bias
it could of been made by the oxfords
labs it self!
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:18

In response to: Report backing primate research gets global media coverage

david wong [Visitor]
A very biast view on TV i think!
I think people have a right to see both
sides of the argument(a non-bias
documentary would help this) before they
make up their minds!
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 15:11

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

iain [Member]

Presumably you refuse all medical treatment then, and would do the same for your family. If it's a choice between animals and humans, I know which I value more.
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 13:43

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

dianne [Visitor]
I have heard words like 'the advancement of human beings' on this site in relation to testing on animals. How can you use the word advancement in such a context. You are referring to a practice that officially started in the victorian era when there was no vote for women, the vast majority of the country lived in the most abject poverty and children still worked in factories, were forced up chimmneys, or even used as prostitutes. I could go on for a long time about this. The point is, this method is not only INCREDIBLY outdated, has been proved to kill thousands of human beings by false research results, and belongs back in the days of young women being forcibly commited to asylums if they became pregnant outside of marriage.

it really is time to move on. How can human advancement be used in the same word as vivisection, which is actually this. The kidnap of a non human animal from its home (if it wasnt unfortunate enough to have been born into captivity for the sole purpose of testing), subjected to a horribly traumatising journey where many of its companions will die from fright, heartbreak or sheer brutality, incarcerated in a terrifying cold lab in a tiny metal cage, probably never ever leaving this environment, then waiting for the footsteps that will bring a 'scientist' to its door, to pull it forcibly out of the barren cold cage it inhabits, (yet this is this creatures only sactuary), to then be subjected to whatever this so called scientist decides to do to it.

One baby monkey that was rescued for instance by ALF, was found to have headphones on his head subjecting him to white noise in order to deafen him. His eyes had been sewn up. the protesters undid the stiches holding his eyes together and took him to a place of refuge. Can you ever believe we can progress as a species while such henious activities are not only allowed but actually condoned by many. (But then so was nazi Germany). What surprises me more than anything is that young people these days have become so brainwashed by the media into believing whatever they are told. I was a teenager in the 70's when we began to question everything, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but mainly I believe for the good. Racial equality, sexual equality, environmental issues and global issues all sprang up then and were mostly fuelled by the young. Where did the passion go to make things better?

If you really look at this issue you will see that it is about the same thing that almost everything else is about - MONEY. you believe scientists are trying to help you? To cure the escalating rates of cancer? YouA lot of you at Protest are Oxford University students. Has it nevetr occurred to you to look at the reasons behind so many of our diseases? You get ill, a pharmaceutrical company brings out a drug, gets it tested on a number of animals (which bear no resemblance to ourselves) and it its tested on enough and they can produce some nonsense about it being 'safe', they can then make themselves - BILLIONS! Wake up to what this is really about!
PermalinkPermalink 16/12/06 @ 13:13

In response to: Report backing primate research gets global media coverage

paul [Member]
The Weatherall report is pretty good but I was a little disappointed by the relatively few references within it to the published scientific literature. In some cases the results of thorough scientific studies were presented without a reference back to the original work, allowing anti-vivs to claim that statements by scientists were assertions rather than the well established facts that they are. Perhaps I'm being a little unfair though, since it is not a report intended for scientists.

One example of this is when they mention the discovery made in monkeys in 1998 that the early depletion of CD4+ T-lymphocytes plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of SIV. This work prompted researchers to undertake biopsies to examine whether the same was happening in humans infected with HIV, something they would not otherwise have done. They discovered that HIV also distroys most CD4+ T-lymphocytes in the gut very soon after infection. This discovery will hopefully lead to better treatments and help design vaccines for HIV. A good, well- referenced account of this work is at
PermalinkPermalink 15/12/06 @ 14:02

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

ad [Member]
Yes I do, I use alternative medical help, and Im much more healthy on that then I ever was on pharmacetricals
PermalinkPermalink 15/12/06 @ 12:32

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

iain [Member]
The video you attempted to link to is over 20 years old and is not from this country. It is entirely irrelevant to this thread, and therefore has been removed and will continue to be removed.

That you disagree with the "entire practice of the pharmaceutical industry" is interesting, I assume you refuse all medical treatment?
PermalinkPermalink 14/12/06 @ 13:40

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

ad [Member]
Well Im afraid I do not agree with theentire practice of the pharmaceutrical industry.
Even if we could cure cancer with
animal testing-which we never could, I
would still be against it, as its
Imorraly unethical-if your so pro about
vivisection-why dont you donate your
pets to the new lab?

PermalinkPermalink 13/12/06 @ 20:41

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

paul [Member]
ad, you should read more widely. African macaques infected with SIV don't die, because they have resistance to it developed over many years of exposure to SIV in the wild. Asian macaques don't have this resistance and when infected with SIV go on to develop AIDS, so they are the most common animal model used for research into HIV vaccines. We all know that they are not perfect models for HIV/AIDS but they have tought us a great deal about this virus which is particularly difficult to target. I have yet to hear any anti-vivisectionists suggest a viable alternative to using monkeys. Indeed the only alternative that might be useful in the future is transgenic mice, and this technique is at an early stage of development. A good review of current work on HIV vaccines is by Girard M.P et al. Vaccine (2006).

There has been quite a lot of interest recently in trying to identify why African macaques don't develop AIDS when infected with SIV (e.g. Kornfield C. et al J. Clin. Invest. 2005). It is hoped that this information will be useful in developing new treatments for HIV/AIDS.

I stand by my claim that pre-clinical animal testing for toxicity and pharmokinetics is necessary. Such testing is not perfect, but then neither are clinical trials. Without thorough pre-clinical testing of novel medicines in animals there wouldn't be many willing volunteers for clinical trials. Your attempt to blame animal testing for all adverse drug reactions is at best misleading, at worst it is a distraction from the real measures that need to be taken to reduce the problem of ADRs.
PermalinkPermalink 13/12/06 @ 10:31

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

Tom [Member]
Moreover the pharmaceutical industry spent £500 million last year on alternatives to animal testing.
[I have to admit - the block capitals caught my attention]
PermalinkPermalink 13/12/06 @ 00:09

In response to: Report backs primate research as another anti-viv faces prison

iain [Member]
There isn't the time to enter into lengthy email exchange with every one who emails in. Your first email was responded to, your second has not yet been in the 2 days or so since you sent it. Block capitals do not an arguement make.
PermalinkPermalink 12/12/06 @ 23:45


July 2020
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<< <     
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    



XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 7
Home | About | Facts | Blogs | Action | Get Involved | Contact | Links | Donate | Site Map Pro-Test 2006 (some rights reserved)

powered by