Pro Animal testing website - SPAM IT.!
topi | 22.02.2006 17:21 | Animal Liberation | Health | Social Struggles | World
Pro animal testing protesters (!!!) have set up a nice little website to (mis)inform people about animal testing.
Apprently, not content with pointless and mass murdering of animals, some folk have been getting annoyed with those who voise their annoyance at this kind of behaviour and have set up their own website.
If there are any clever web people out there who know how to spam these sites then please use your skills.!!
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/contact.htm
Or you might want to call the number provided and give them your views....
07960 180 033
If there are any clever web people out there who know how to spam these sites then please use your skills.!!
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Or you might want to call the number provided and give them your views....
07960 180 033
topi
Comments
Hide the following 14 comments
Penicillin and inbred scum
25.02.2006 17:13
And then they list various things that were developed by animal testing, most of which didn't actually require animal testing and some of which is simply inaccurate propaganda.
For instance, it lists Penicillin which only required a cheese sandwich and would have failed animal testing as it is toxic to guinea pigs - which is a perfect example of the uselessness of animal testing. An Oxford education obviously isn't something worth having anymore.
"The discovery of penicillin, however, was made without the use of animals. We should be thankful that the animal tests the researchers were later required to perform on this drug, before its release, didn't include tests on guinea pigs - Penicillin kills them." -
Danny
Some Publically Available Details
26.02.2006 10:44
pro-test.org.uk
Registrant:
Pro-Test
Registrant type:
Not supplied
Registrant's address:
99 The Mall
Swindon
SN1 4JE
GB
Registrant's agent:
Telivo Ltd [Tag = TELIVO]
URL:
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 30-Jan-2006
Renewal date: 30-Jan-2008
Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.
Name servers:
ns0.telivo.com
ns1.telivo.com
Mike
Penicillin a "wonder Medicine"?
26.02.2006 12:56
The thoughtless,massive over-prescription of penicillin,using it even as a preventative medicine,has over time lead to the development to particularly resistant strains of bacteria which are immune to all penicillin treatments.The same applies to other anti-biotics...It is one of the achievments of modern medicine that it has succeeded in creating ever weaker human beings,and even stronger strains of bacteria.Antibiotic which means-hostile to life.And it is no secret these wonder drugs have only worked wonders for the bank balances for the drug manufacturers.
Excerpted from an article by-Prof.Massimo Ferrara-Santamaria
Mick
Drugs
27.02.2006 00:25
If you agree with that, then you're clearly not up to speed on the shocking mortaility rates prior to the discovery of modern antibiotics. And how do we explain increasing lifespan?
Amused
Who sells the drugs,who writes the historys
27.02.2006 02:35
Speak to an independant medical historian and your childhood belief in drugs will fade as quick as the "miracle cures" do.
Mick
You are all evil
01.03.2006 18:56
joseph garibaldi
e-mail:
sdkjfh@sdlkjfh
Joseph would rather save a rat
02.03.2006 14:20
How many human beings have been maimed,paralysed,blinded,deformed,brain damaged and killed by legal prescription drugs,passed as "safe" through animal experiments,Joseph,do u know? or do u care?
All of the victims both Human and Nonhuman of the drug,chemical companys and there "researchers" have been documented in books by medical historian Hans Ruesch-Slaughter of the innocent,Naked Empress;or the great medical fraud,1000 doctors against vivisection.
And yes Joseph in these books above-thousands of medical people call animal experimentation the principle cause of disease(allowing useless,toxic drugs on the market) and say only clinical research is scientific.
There are also similar books by the fake wonders of modern medicine,by Dr Robert Mendelsohn a medical professional who says "modern medicine or medical science is a religion" and kills more than it saves,he authored a book called-confessions of a medical heretic.
Check them out-they have enlightened me,but maybe you prefer the BBC
Tim
Ignorant fools
08.03.2006 20:03
Jane
Ignorant Tool
12.03.2006 11:43
"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADR) are not very serious, others cause the death, hospitalization, or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year, including more than 100,000 fatalities."
Adverse Drug Reactions
How Serious Is the Problem and How Often and Why Does It Occur?
Avenger
Reaction
16.03.2006 12:05
If you wish to take part in an academic debate in an academic style then perhaps you'd like to offer a proper reference to Prof Massimo Ferrara-Santamaria's article. I find it hard to believe that on googling his name there appears to be no Prof Massimo Ferrara-Santamaria in existence. I also find it hard to believe that an academic would write an article and subsequently have it published in any kind of reomotely scholarly publication or journal given the laughable grammar, syntax and general sloppy style. It's the sort of writing I'd have expected from a first year undergraduate.
Amused:
You are quite correct. I would eat my hat Mike if you could argue against that (I see you did but a proper and fitting rebuke would be better)
Joseph:
Joseph, you've clearly hit on both the issues that this debate needs to address:
1) The equality of animals of humans and subsequent morality sacrificing an animal for a human
2) The efficacy of animal testing at all
I do, however, believe that using notions of 'Evil' is all a bit inflammatory and meaningless.
Tim:
No drug is entirely safe and without potential for side effect. That doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the benefit of the many for the suffering of the few. Medical professionals must make quality of life based judgements and whilst we could say that utilitarianism has its flaws it is the foundation on which our society is built. That aside, however, to include in this in an argument against animal testing is extraneous.
The book you mention, Slaughter of the Innocents, appears to be held in pretty high regard by tabloid and populist commentators alike but it might be worth a read so I've ordered it from Amazon.
Jane:
Fundamentally, I, like you, believe in free speech and that with free speech comes certain responsibilities. We are responsible for ensuring that opposing arguments are always heard and that retribution against such arguments take the form of speech. The theft of a body from a cemetary caused damage to both the reputation of those against animal testing and to the debating platform itself.
Avenger:
Nice misuse of quotes lifted from the article at worstpills.org. I'm impressed. I imagine your argument was in support of the notion that the efficacy of animal testing is flawed because the drugs that are released having satisfactorily completed animal testing trials are still killing people. Well, Avenger, had you read into the article and understood it you'd realise that you have actually damaged this argument. 70% of the deaths were avoidable, that is to say, not directly related to a deficiency in the drug but to other factors compounding the effects of any side effects. Clearly, 70% is a best case scenario but even at worst the article claims that some 18.65% of deaths were where administration of the drug was contra-indicated showing a clear negligence on the part of the clinician rather than a deficiency in the drug itself.
My thoughts:
The debate on the use of animals for the testing must come down to two fundamentals:
1) The equality of animal and human life
2) The efficacy of animal testing
This argument has the power to polarise. It does so between those that can seperate their own emotional reactions and maintain a logical and rational debate and those who cannot. It is not a debate that should be readily argued by the general public as it is a debate that few are qualified to be involved in. It is an argument upon which all will have an opinion: the cuteness of a rabbit or mouse is certainly not lost on most and the suffering of humans from disease certainly isn't lost on others. I'm not sure this debate can ever be resolved.
Ross
e-mail:
rosslittle@gmail.com
TOPI please may we have your phone number and email address?
21.04.2006 08:06
Silent Majority
Or...
09.05.2006 16:21
James
Pro-test info
17.05.2006 13:34
David Cameron
im for animal testing
18.05.2006 15:26
roisin age 12 england
roisin
e-mail:
r0e_r0cks_@hotmail.com