Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

I would take insulin, of course: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...nd-Insulin

anti-vivisection propaganda countered with pro-animal testing propaganda.

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.o...-diabetes/

The article you posted contains no references, whereas the article I posted references scientific articles throughout. It also has the same problem as every other pro-vivisection website I have visited. It states that animals were used at stages in the development of the drug, and then expects its readers to assume (post hoc ergo propter hoc) that the animal experimentation is the reason why the drug exists.

Yes, I have visited plenty of pro-vivisection websites, and played devil's advocate with myself. Animal experimentation always loses that game. I have even emailed the leader of one of those organisations, pretending to hate animal rights activists and honestly wanting material that I can use to argue in favour of animal experimentation. All she could give me was lists of drugs where animal testing was used in their development, with no evidence that the animal testing played a necessary part. However, she did mention that there were legal requirements for the testing. It seems that this is the only genuine reason why animal testing is done; if the drug causes side effects, they can say "well, we tested it" and avoid litigation.

Obviously I don't know about every possible scientific use of animals, but in the areas where animals are most often used (testing of human drugs, toxicity testing, teratogen testing and carcinogen testing) the statistics are plainly visible, that the animal model is a poor predictor for humans. Even if it is right, say 40% of the time (being generous), you might say this has some use, but you still have to then test on humans because you don't know which 40% of the drugs/substances will work the same in humans.

Imagine a scenario, as above, where a drug is tested on humans and results in a myriad of deaths within the sample. You are forwarding the thesis that if x amount of humans died it is no different to if x amount of animals died in the same scenario.

To prevent this, this is where the testing on animals is required, and this also appears to the be the point you are ignoring.

No, I'm saying that there is no reason to believe that x animals would have also died had the substance been tested on them. There are many examples of drugs being toxic in humans having passed animal testing, and there are also drugs that have failed animal testing, but eventually been shown to work in humans.

Ethical review boards, and repeated ethical review implications for flouting their guidelines and restrictions, ensure to a good degree in contemporary research that no undue suffering is caused to animals in the enacting of the research methodology.

Now this is just naive. "I'm sure the authorities would never allow anything bad to happen!"