Vegetarian Discussion: The Great "animal Rights" Lie Of Omission

The Great "animal Rights" Lie Of Omission
Posts: 47

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-04-10 12:21:03 EST
Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has trotted out one of
the most easily discredited lies told by their movement: that adverse
drug reactions, including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of drug
safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of omission: it omits to
say that any drug approved by the FDA or any other national drug
approval agency in other countries also passed much more extensive
testing on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if post-approval
adverse drug reactions are going to be claimed to show the failure of
testing on animals, then one *must* also conclude that testing on humans
is a conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course, "aras", one
of the more peculiar forms of lying ideological extremists, don't want
to make that claim.

"aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose of testing on
animals. The tests are not intended to prove the safety of the drug
compound for human prescriptive use. They are intended only to
establish that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin testing
on human test subjects without killing them. Any drug that is approved
for prescription passed at least three phases of human clinical trials,
in addition to passing the animal testing prior to the human trials. If
approval is contingent on passing four consecutive phases of testing,
and some post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to lay the
blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the animal tests; but that's
what the liars calling themselves "aras" always do.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-10 12:43:24 EST
On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> blubbered:


Why don't you volunteer to be a test subject for new chemical toxins
that the big pharmas want to put on the market?

George Plimpton
2011-04-10 13:11:41 EST
On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> blubbered:
>
>
> ...big pharmas...

You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist. "big
pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language. You believe in a
bogeyman - you're stupid.


Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-10 13:43:52 EST
On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  blubbered:
>
> > ...big pharmas...
>
> You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist.  "big
> pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language.  You believe in a
> bogeyman - you're stupid.


What do you call them, Goobs?

Budikka666
2011-04-10 13:54:05 EST
On Apr 10, 12:43 pm, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  blubbered:
>
> > > ...big pharmas...
>
> > You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist.  "big
> > pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language.  You believe in a
> > bogeyman - you're stupid.
>
> What do you call them, Goobs?

He's a stupid troll who apparently loves to spam indiscriminate news
groups and isn't smart enough to grasp that animal testing isn't the
be all and end all of testing. He doesn't realize, for example, that
thalidomide was tested on animals and evidently considered safe for
use during pregancy, etc., etc. He's trying to paint this as a simple
B&W picture, he's failing to support anything he says, and no one
knows why this juvenile is posting his mindless bullshit to a.a..
He's as worthless as he sounds and eventually he will go away if we
ignore him.

Budikka

George Plimpton
2011-04-10 18:37:44 EST
On 4/10/2011 10:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> blubbered:
>>
>>> ...big pharmas...
>>
>> You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist. "big
>> pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language. You believe in a
>> bogeyman - you're stupid.
>
>
> What do you call them

Pharmaceutical companies. All adults call them that.

George Plimpton
2011-04-10 18:47:39 EST
On 4/10/2011 10:54 AM, Budikka666 wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:43 pm, "Mr.Smartypants"<bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> blubbered:
>>
>>>> ...big pharmas...
>>
>>> You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist. "big
>>> pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language. You believe in a
>>> bogeyman - you're stupid.
>>
>> What do you call them, Goobs?
>
> He's a stupid troll who apparently loves to spam indiscriminate news
> groups and isn't smart enough to grasp that animal testing isn't the
> be all and end all of testing.

No one ever said it was the <chortle> "be all and end all" of testing.
In fact, I explicitly said exactly the opposite.


> He doesn't realize, for example, that
> thalidomide was tested on animals and evidently considered safe for
> use during pregancy, etc., etc.

No, Thalidomide was *not* tested for safety during pregnancy. In fact,
the problem was there was too little, not too much, testing of
Thalidomide on animals. Thalidomide produced teratogenic effects -
birth defects - in every mammalian species tested, notably rabbits and
rats. Had it been tested on pregnant mammals, the teratogenic effects
would have been obvious and it never would have been approved for use by
pregnant women.


> He's trying to paint this as a simple
> B&W picture, he's failing to support anything he says,

I have supported abundantly what I have saide. Specifically, I have
pointed out a glaring lie of omission by anti-animal testing ideologues,
and you have said nothing to counter it.

Kelsey Bjarnason
2011-04-10 19:10:09 EST
[snips]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:54:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:

> He's a stupid troll who apparently loves to spam indiscriminate news
> groups and isn't smart enough to grasp that animal testing isn't the be
> all and end all of testing. He doesn't realize, for example, that
> thalidomide was tested on animals and evidently considered safe for use
> during pregancy, etc., etc. He's trying to paint this as a simple B&W
> picture, he's failing to support anything he says, and no one knows why
> this juvenile is posting his mindless bullshit to a.a.. He's as
> worthless as he sounds and eventually he will go away if we ignore him.

I've always thought the issue was a little too black and white in its
presentation. I, for one, do not oppose _necessary_ animal testing; I do
oppose unnecessary or frivolous animal testing.

I would much rather a new drug be animal tested and that we have _some_
confidence that it's not going to immediately send one into fatal
convulsions, or destroy one's kidneys in a year, before we even think
about human testing.

On the other hand, there is - IMO - no case to be made for testing, say,
eyeliner on animals. There's enough of the stuff on the shelf now that
if you feel you need to test on animals, you should seriously reconsider
whether your new product should exist at all.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd need neither human nor animal testing;
molecular modeling, computer simulations, etc, etc, etc, would suffice.
Maybe a few years down the line, it will.

Until then, if the choice is between giving an untested drug to humans,
giving up on new drugs at all, or testing them on animals, my vote is for
the animals. Anyone who feels otherwise is free to volunteer to replace
the rabbits in the first-round tests.


Rupert
2011-04-10 21:44:12 EST
On Apr 11, 8:47 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 10:54 AM, Budikka666 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 12:43 pm, "Mr.Smartypants"<bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    blubbered:
>
> >>>> ...big pharmas...
>
> >>> You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist.  "big
> >>> pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language.  You believe in a
> >>> bogeyman - you're stupid.
>
> >> What do you call them, Goobs?
>
> > He's a stupid troll who apparently loves to spam indiscriminate news
> > groups and isn't smart enough to grasp that animal testing isn't the
> > be all and end all of testing.
>
> No one ever said it was the <chortle> "be all and end all" of testing.
> In fact, I explicitly said exactly the opposite.
>
> > He doesn't realize, for example, that
> > thalidomide was tested on animals and evidently considered safe for
> > use during pregancy, etc., etc.
>
> No, Thalidomide was *not* tested for safety during pregnancy.  In fact,
> the problem was there was too little, not too much, testing of
> Thalidomide on animals.  Thalidomide produced teratogenic effects -
> birth defects - in every mammalian species tested, notably rabbits and
> rats.  Had it been tested on pregnant mammals, the teratogenic effects
> would have been obvious and it never would have been approved for use by
> pregnant women.
>

This is not true. There were very extensive efforts to detect
teratogenic effects from thalidomide in animals after the fact, and
the teratogenic effects were absent in many different species.
Teratogenic effects would not have been observed from animal studies.

> > He's trying to paint this as a simple
> > B&W picture, he's failing to support anything he says,
>
> I have supported abundantly what I have saide.  Specifically, I have
> pointed out a glaring lie of omission by anti-animal testing ideologues,
> and you have said nothing to counter it.


George Plimpton
2011-04-10 21:58:34 EST
On 4/10/2011 6:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:47 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/10/2011 10:54 AM, Budikka666 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 12:43 pm, "Mr.Smartypants"<bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 10, 11:11 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2011 9:43 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 10, 10:21 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> blubbered:
>>
>>>>>> ...big pharmas...
>>
>>>>> You just gave yourself away as an ignorant ideological extremist. "big
>>>>> pharma" - only idiotic extremists use that language. You believe in a
>>>>> bogeyman - you're stupid.
>>
>>>> What do you call them, Goobs?
>>
>>> He's a stupid troll who apparently loves to spam indiscriminate news
>>> groups and isn't smart enough to grasp that animal testing isn't the
>>> be all and end all of testing.
>>
>> No one ever said it was the<chortle> "be all and end all" of testing.
>> In fact, I explicitly said exactly the opposite.
>>
>>> He doesn't realize, for example, that
>>> thalidomide was tested on animals and evidently considered safe for
>>> use during pregancy, etc., etc.
>>
>> No, Thalidomide was *not* tested for safety during pregnancy. In fact,
>> the problem was there was too little, not too much, testing of
>> Thalidomide on animals. Thalidomide produced teratogenic effects -
>> birth defects - in every mammalian species tested, notably rabbits and
>> rats. Had it been tested on pregnant mammals, the teratogenic effects
>> would have been obvious and it never would have been approved for use by
>> pregnant women.
>>
>
> This is not true. There were very extensive efforts to detect
> teratogenic effects from thalidomide in animals after the fact,

Yes, dummy - *after* the fact of human birth defects. Thalidomide was
not tested for teratogenic effects on animals, and obviously not in
humans, prior to approval.

The problem was not *enough* animal testing, not too little.


> the teratogenic effects were absent in many different species.

The teratogenic effects manifested in every mammalian species tested.


> Teratogenic effects would not have been observed from animal studies.

They *were* observed, in all mammal species tested. Stop lying.

Thalidomide did initially pass safety tests in animals but this was
because the proper tests were not performed: thalidomide was not
tested on pregnant animals. If a thorough battery of tests had been
performed in animals, the teratogenic effects would have been
caught. Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the USA because
the Food and Drug Administration felt that not enough testing had
been carried out. After its withdrawal from the market, thalidomide
was tested on pregnant animals and found to induce birth defects in
mice, rats, hamsters, marmosets and baboons (see original literature
below). If these tests on animals had been carried out, the disaster
would have been averted. So the thalidomide example so beloved of
anti-vivisectionists turns out to be an argument in favour of more
animal testing, not less -- which is why it is now a legal
requirement to test all drugs on pregnant animals. It was the
absence of rigorous animal testing that led to this human tragedy.

You are lying.



>
>>> He's trying to paint this as a simple
>>> B&W picture, he's failing to support anything he says,
>>
>> I have supported abundantly what I have said. Specifically, I have
>> pointed out a glaring lie of omission by anti-animal testing ideologues,
>> and you have said nothing to counter it.
>

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron