Childhood indoctrination

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Here is a link explaining the fallacy you have committed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Animal testing for human medicine is scientific fraud, and involves some of the worst abuse imaginable. The people who profit from it try to justify it ethically by saying that the animals are different from us, and then try to justify it scientifically by saying that the animals are the same as us. There is no logically consistent way to justify animal testing without subscribing to that contradiction.

Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

There is no logical inconsistency unless you want to give animals that are bread the precise reason of testing methodlolgies that could be fatal to a human the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take. Thus any further converstaion would result in an impasse as I am for medical advancement and you seemingly are for eliminating all research that would be conducted on animals, effectively wiping entire fields of medicine that saves lives on a daily basis (such as me).

There is a cause for that argument, but it is not one I would subscribe to.

Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy. Becuase it isn't. Unless you're saying someone magically invented a cure after conducting research on animals and then just invented a link.

You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

Another question: How do you define 'animals'?