Pro Animal testing website - SPAM IT.!

"The following is a list of just a few of the procedures and drugs made possible by animal research:"

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." -  http://www.dawnwatch.com/animal_testing.htm also  http://www.theecologist.co.uk/current_issue/animal_testing.htm

Domain name:
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:  http://www.telivo.com

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

Penicillin was discovered by pure chance and would probably not have been employed as a medicine,according to statements by its co-discoverers,had it been first tested as intended on guiney-pigs-since penicillin is fatal to guinea-pigs.But at the time there were no guinea-pigs available in their laboratory,so mice were used instead and there weren't killed by it....some animals can tolerate 100 times more or less of a given substance than human beings...to this day there is still no universally 'correct' dosage of penicillin.Some people are extremely allergic to penicillin and can be severely harmed by it,while it remains ineffective in others.Moreover,more and more doctors have agreed these days that penicillin has done more harm then good.

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, you quote some Prof saying "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"

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,you are excessively naive,who writes the medical historys-drug industry employed or financial influenced ,corrupt or university brainwashed would be,medical people.
Speak to an independant medical historian and your childhood belief in drugs will fade as quick as the "miracle cures" do.

I cannot beleive you would rather scrafice a humans life to save a rat. you people sicken me, how can sit by and stop medical progress and still go to bed with a clean conscience. Animal testing has saved peoples lives, and now you are trying to stop it. you complain that testing on animals is unethical, but what you do not understand is that valuing an animal the same as a human is completly unethical. how can you stop something that can save lives and still remain guilt free.

Who said they'd rather save a rat than a human,only you joseph,you self deceiving fake reporter,your pretending to report something that someone said,in order to say,"oh there so anti human",while presenting this fiction fake report as true.

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

The pro-test organization is a moral and brilliant idea. The people that are against animal testing, answer this question, how many medicines have you used that were tested on animals and if you had not taken them would you still be alive today. The extremes some people go to to show their distaste of animal testing is ridiculous, digging up an old womens grave to name but one. You are all small minded people who do not understand the importance of animal testing in the development of the human race. After all the animals that are killed will help cure millions of humans and animals alike.

Jane, you would be better off sending individual condolence cards to the families of the 100,000 US citizens that are poisoned to death annually by so called 'safety tested' drugs.

"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?

 http://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cfm?op_id=4

Mike:
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.

We would like to post your details on the site so the majority can contact you to tell you what you think you your threatening behaviour.

just read what is on there and post a rational reply instead of trying to censor it? You know, it's what responsible people with legitimate claims do.

You can't spell

im for animal testing because of the medical advances. we need to cure illness and byanimals givin up thier lives they are doing somthing good everyone.if you had to choose to save a family member or a an animal what would it be? would you let a member of your family die just because some animal wants to live in the jungle?animal testing for make up is wrong but for medical advances i think this is just.
roisin age 12 england
 r0e_r0cks_@hotmail.com