No cats please

[Not dead yet!]

OMG they're not seriously thinking of using Cats to test a potential XMRV vaccine, are they? Medicine is sadistic enough without harming a creature I consider to be sentient.

While looking at the background for CFS studies, I found this presentation:http://regist2.virology-education.com/1XMRV/docs/07_Sparger.pdf

From this collection of presentations: http://regist2.virology-education.com/1XMRV/7_September.html

I think I'd rather die. I want no part of such a thing. I'll volunteer in a second to be vaccinated with an unknown vaccine to prevent cats from being tortured. I'd rather put myself at risk, I'm already sick.

 

[Ladyliegh]

Tough decisions to use any animal for tests.
I love cats & dogs, and most animals, sorry to say I am not vegan... I would starve.
You would think science would have found a better way by now.

 

[Not dead yet!]

I'm not vegan either, but it's hideous enough to use rats. I had a pet rat, trust me they feel affection. I just have limits on how much I can tolerate.

 

[Empty]

Tough decisions to use any animal for tests.
I love cats & dogs, and most animals, sorry to say I am not vegan... I would starve.
You would think science would have found a better way by now.

Science has.
Billion dollar industries though, are addicted to their dollars too much.

 

[JennyJenny]

OMG they're not seriously thinking of using Cats to test a potential XMRV vaccine, are they? Medicine is sadistic enough without harming a creature I consider to be sentient.

While looking at the background for CFS studies, I found this presentation:http://regist2.virology-education.com/1XMRV/docs/07_Sparger.pdf

From this collection of presentations: http://regist2.virology-education.com/1XMRV/7_September.html

I think I'd rather die. I want no part of such a thing. I'll volunteer in a second to be vaccinated with an unknown vaccine to prevent cats from being tortured. I'd rather put myself at risk, I'm already sick.

This is from 2010? I don't think any of this is moving forward.

 

[Hip]

Medicine is sadistic enough without harming a creature I consider to be sentient.

Noble sentiments, but don't cats go around gratuitously killing mice, rats and birds at least once a week, bringing home the dead bodies to show their owners? I used to know one Buddhist who kept a cute little pet rat, and always talked about the conscious sensibilities of rats.

 

[Not dead yet!]

Noble sentiments, but don't cats go around gratuitously killing mice, rats and birds at least once a week, bringing home the dead bodies to show their owners? I used to know one Buddhist who kept a cute little pet rat, and always talked about the conscious sensibilities of rats.

Yup, and I've killed pigs and goats to eat them, and indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of chickens, geese, ducks, and cows, not to mention the lives I've "aborted" by eating the eggs. Sentience is not limited to those who do not kill. Actually all life kills other life. State of the incarnate world. Only in our respective heavens can we live a spiritual life free of killing. That alone makes heaven a worthwhile sentiment.

I honestly wish that rats were not lab subjects, but I must admit they're a better small animal model than rabbits. Actually guinea pigs (which I haven't had as a pet, so someone else will have to say if they are affectionate/attached or not)... are one of the few non-vitamin C making animals, but I'm not sure if they are omnivores. In my experience, mice are good at biting me and hiding but I haven't seen one that's attached to cross species.

Actually my particular horror about cats (and sometimes dogs) being used is, if you look at youtube, you will discover that cats adopt other small animals and nurse them as their own "kids.' That's extremely rare in the animal kingdom. I think dogs do it too to an extent, but I haven't seen a lot about it. That behavior is a wild behavior, not just induced by humans. Cats are the surrogate moms to many small creatures. Ok enough rhapsodizing. But I can't imagine hurting something like that. I'd rather be sick.

This is from 2010? I don't think any of this is moving forward.

For once, I'm glad. I wasn't really worried, but let's imagine fast forward 60 years from now... "oh gee shucks, they were right back then... they're all dead now so we can admit it" I'll be beyond caring myself, but, well, I'd haunt them..... whooooooooo! Don't think I can't come back as a vamp... for that I would.. bwahahaha

 

[Ladyliegh]

Actually my particular horror about cats (and sometimes dogs) being used is, if you look at youtube, you will discover that cats adopt other small animals and nurse them as their own "kids.' That's extremely rare in the animal kingdom. I think dogs do it too to an extent, but I haven't seen a lot about it. That behavior is a wild behavior, not just induced by humans. Cats are the surrogate moms to many small creatures. Ok enough rhapsodizing. But I can't imagine hurting something like that. I'd rather be sick.

I had a small dog who adopted a litter of kittens, the mother disappeared, I dropper fed them & wiped their butts. After a couple of days my dog produced milk & she took over grooming & licking their butts ...
It was amazing, too funny watching her with kittens jumping around her & riding on her back... All the kittens survived & were very healthy.

 

[Empty]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/

Conclusion

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering.80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health.81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

http://ayshaakhtar.com/about-dr-akhtar/

Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., is a double Board-certified neurologist and preventive medicine/public health specialist

Dr. Akhtar is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and works for the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). She serves as Lieutenant Commander in the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to protect the public from public health threats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/post_9111_b_6783322.html

This study is the first to provide real data on the number of animals confined, burned, shocked, poisoned, crippled, infected and otherwise experimented on in U.S. laboratories. Our finding that there has been a major increase in animal use at major facilities contradicts claims by the vivisection industry that the use of animals in U.S. laboratories has declined and calls into question the effectiveness of government policies aimed at minimizing animal use in experiments.
The fact that animal use has exploded like this is particularly troubling in light of the overwhelming evidence that the results of animal experiments cannot be extrapolated to humans, the existence and availability of superior non-animal research technology, and the fact that according to a recent Pew poll, a growing majority of the public opposes experiments on animals.

 

[Not dead yet!]

Yeah it's pretty sick. My first introduction into it was when I had uncontrolled IBS and was reading research for insight. I was thinking... is it really necessary to vivisect rats every time? And how is it not a confounding factor that they have their guts open? How can anyone make a conclusion based on disemboweled animals? You can only really come to the conclusion that disemboweled people with that drug might have the same response. Anything else is tooty fruity.

I'm not really sure why it's not enough to do phase 1, in vitro, phase 2, safety test (LD 50), phase 3, humans. But then again, I'm not doing the research, just reading it. I imagine it's the lack of basic lab technique training. It seems like people really learn the techniques used today when they get a postdoc position, not before. So they do what people teach them, and maybe don't make waves because such positions are rarer than unicorns.

 

[Empty]

Phase 0 microdosing in-humano and Phase IV.
Phase IV is the real experiment. Especially for vulnerable populations.