Well here's a thought... before we started animal testing LONG ago, we didn't have all these vaccines and all this s**t... We lived in caves once and we got by alright. Do we really need all these vaccines and medicines that one day our bodies will become immune to anyway? I don't want to argue a case, I'm just trying to see the other side of this.
We got by with living usually about 20-30 years. 30 was considered being -old- in the cave days. Just to have your child survive or the mother survive during birth was a miracle.
Life span has been improved by far as compared to the cave days. We didn't get by alright really, we survived while we learned more about the land around us and what to do. As time progressed we began having longer life spans.
In the Tudor days, think about them. Dying during child birth left and right, dying from the bubonic plague or even diphtheria. Simple things we can now fix. Diabetes was unknown and there was no fix for it and many people lost limbs and in turn died from that. Lifespan if I remember right was about 50 years old then? No. I lied. Just googled it and it came up with average lifespan of 35. Obviously I over shot it.
Our bodies do not become immune to Vaccines and Medications unless they are over used and that is up to the individual user.
Anyone can become immune to Vicodin if they over use it. Anyone can be immune to one type of Antibiotic if they over use that or are often sick.
That's why we have more than one type of medication and vaccine to help aid in certain things.
I think your arguments are well revised and admittedly well backed up, although I still say I'm against animal testing.
So yeah, it means that there's a chance I might now be here right now if animal testing wasn't around but... If I can avoid it, I will.
I do appreciate that we use an animal to test vaccines and treatments for our health, but when it comes to cosmetics and our own luxuries, that is what I disagree with.
I'm impressed by your arguments for the issue. Keep it up.
Majoring in Psychology, i'm obviously for it but for the -right- reasons, and have at the very least learned about it some in my past. Nothing wrong with a bit of on the side research either.
I think cosmetic testing is pretty much pointless. I don't go out of my way to look for something not tested on animals, though. But at least in the cosmetics industry you do find more humans being tested on, while yes still animals are tested as well. I know it's pretty common to see Ads to become a tester for the latest foundation in newspapers and such. They pay anywhere from 20-100 dollars, i've heard of more before too. To be honest too, I absolutely don't know how they go about cosmetic testing on animals either. Hair Dye, I figure obviously they may dye the animal. But other things I do not know.
As much as I don't like the idea of cosmetic animal testing, it always kinda makes me giggle to picture a monkey with curled eyelashes and glossy lips eek
My mum is an animal activist and I'm proud of her. I can't stand animal testing, and we even refuse to buy products that are tested on animals, or that buy the ingredients off companies who test on animals. As much as I like Herbal Essences, it's just wrong...
If a company doesn't test on animals, what do they do? Do they test on people or buy research from another company that does test on animals?
You can't escape testing and have a safe product.
**edit** found some information for ya -- (even though they link to Peta I'm going to link to them)
Due to the pressure from consumers, more cosmetic companies are placing labels on their products that ensure "cruelty free" and "not tested on animals." What do these labels actually mean? Some products with these labels have only used non-animal testing methods, but other's make the claim and then sneak around the issue. In some cases, the individual ingredients have been tested on animals in the past, but not the actual mixture being sold. In the worst scenario, some manufacturers actually hire an outside company to do the cosmetic animal testing for them and buy the results.
I think if animal testing can be avoided for cosmetics, that's great. But I think the 'not tested on animals' label is misleading, to say the least.
I just got to say; I believe I read and learned in school that live humans were dissected as well, in order to see how the inner workings really work while one is alive. But this was done on Criminals and people found on the streets to be worthless?
Someone back me up here?
So yeah, not all of it was dead bodies. Which somehow I see nothing wrong with that to be honest.
The only things I can find, Morphine, are the research performed on live subjects by Nazi doctor Josef Mengele and some during the later years of WWII by the Imperial Japanese army. In addition to other cases of abused human research.
What i'm thinking of goes a bit before WWII, though I didn't even think of that to be honest. Which in turn it has to do with my own family history (A lot of german/jew background)
What I am thinking of though occurred very early on in history and became a general practice until a halt came along. You know, got to be humane and all. Most of what I have learned in general is from my Psychology classes, i'm yet to take an actual anatomy class, putting it off because I'm not wanting to dissect a cat to be honest.
Though in my Psychology classes things always have to turn around and relate in some way to something else. xD While we studied the human brain and workings of the nerves for quite a while, things usually turn around to how insane people were and murderers and etc;.
Here, found this- Which is quite a bit off time period wise from what i'm thinking, though- This is from Wikipedia of all things too. =/
"The first use of human cadavers for anatomical research occurred later in the 4th century BCE when Herophilos and Erasistratus gained permission to perform live dissections, or vivisection, on criminals in Alexandria under the auspices of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Herophilos in particular developed a body of anatomical knowledge much more informed by the actual structure of the human body than previous works had been."
Just to hit the point of Vaccines that Eiz posted, (The link provided)
Around 12-13 years:
Cervical cancer (HPV) vaccine, which protects against cervical cancer (girls only): three jabs given within six months
Did anyone else do this, in the US, or UK? Or is that something you truly need in the UK?
It became an option I believe when I was in High school. I remember it was on the news and some doctors went on about how they don't even do it for their own children because it hasn't been studied nearly enough. Similar to one vaccine that was given many years ago that gave the 1st or 2nd generation born, "fish limbs"
I never got it. In fact I haven't been vaccinated against anything but Tetanus since I was about 11, and that was only because I got hurt.
Anyhow, needless to say I know some vaccinations should be done but then the fact was brought up that if you perform safe sex, don't sleep around, etc; you shouldn't have a problem in the first place.