Qué verg üenza, haciendo apología de la experimentación sobre seres vivos. No digo que a día de hoy sea totalmente prescindible, pero en vez de intentar quedar bien y fomentar que se prolongue el uso de animales, lo que deberíais fomentar es la investigación de técnicas que permitan prescindir de ellos. Qué vergüenza! No basta con que les deis una muerte cruel, sino que encima haceis apología!
Supongo que tambi én deberíamos de estar agradecidos al Doctor Mengele pòr sus maravillosas investigaciones...en animales humanos...
Kike | 02/05/08 - 6:33 pm | #

Qué verguenza, haciendo apologia de la experimentaci ón sobre seres vivos. No digo que a di­a de hoy sea totalmente prescindible, pero en vez de intentar quedar bien y fomentar que se prolongue el uso de animales, lo que deberi­ais fomentar es la investigacion de tecnicas que permitan prescindir de ellos. Que verguenza! No basta con que les deis una muerte cruel, sino que encima haceis apologi­a!
Supongo que tambien deberiamos de estar agradecidos al Doctor Mengele por sus maravillosas investigaciones...en animales humanos...

ESTE BLOG ME PARECE PATETICO. (Y encima es una mierda, que no admite tildes, dieresis ni eñes)
Kike | 02/05/08 - 6:50 pm | #

No hablo espanol
Agagooga | Homepage | 02/05/08 - 7:34 pm | #

es indignante lo sumamente subnormales que son esta gente. Que tengais que alardear sobre lo positivo que es asesinar animales (cuando hay t écnicas alternativas, pero claro, más caras) para curar niñitas enfermas.... me parece de manicomio y, como mínimo, de cárcel. Vosotros debeis ser descendientes directos del dr. menguele, y sus experimentos con niños y adultos humanos. Seguro que también lo aprobais.

me dais n áuseas. Aqui los terroristas sois vosotros, no confundamos las cosas.
Antitauromaquia.es | Homepage | 02/05/08 - 7:44 pm | #

La experimentación con animales no sirve para nada
http://nacidoslibres.blogspot.com/
(escrito sin acentos)
El especismo es una forma de discriminacion que hoy en d ía nuestra sociedad fomenta, al igual que alguna vez, nuestra sociedad fomento la eslcavitud, el racismo, el sexismo, y otras practicas que hoy en dia son consideradas mundialmente erroneas. Es obvio que los intereses economicos estan en el medio, y lo peor es que pretenden engañar a las personas acerca de los activistas por los derechos de los animales llamandolos terroristas. Los 400 puestos de trabajo generados, no tienen nada que ver con matar animales vivos, con la tecnologia que hay hoy en dia, es SABIDO que no es necesaria la practica en animales. No solo es innecesaria, sino también en vano. "Hay toda una larga serie de diferencias fisiologicas y bioquimicas entre distintos animales, producto de los diferentes procesos evolutivos que cada variedad ha experimentado, que hacen imposible extrapolar a los seres humanos los resultados de la experimentacion en otros animales. Asi, los casos de muertes e intoxicaciones por farmacos testados con exito en animales se suceden. En realidad, la unica razon para que aquella continue son los grandes intereses economicos implicados para sus defensores, que han invertido cantidades millonarias en engañar al publico, haciendole creer equivocadamente en la necesidad del uso de animales. Mientras, los metodos de investigacion autenticamente cientificos son dejados de lado, y cientos de millones de animales con plena capacidad de sentir se ven obligados a padecer un indecible sufrimiento y muerte. Consecuencias humanas de la experimentación con animales Estos no son mas que unos pocos ejemplos de productos que, tras ser probados en miles de animales, fueron considerados aptos y seguros para uso Talidomida: Calmante recetado a mujeres embarazadas, que produjo máshumano: Opreno: Tratamientode 12.000 casos de graves malformaciones en sus hijos. contra la artritis. Mato a 61 pacientes y causo más de 3.500 casos de reacciones adversas graves, aunque habia sido testado en monos y otros animales, que no Teroptren: Utilizado para tratar la leucemia en niños,mostraron problemas. los cuales murieron más rápidamente que si no hubiesen sido tratados. Esto no pudo ser previsto por los resultados de los experimentos realizados en 18.000 Clioquinol: Antidiarreico. Causo 30.000 casos de paralisis sólo enratones. Japon y miles de muertes y casos de ceguera en todo el mundo. Ni las ratas, perros, gatos o conejos utilizados en los tests previos, ni todos los animales utilizados en tests posteriores revelaron la neurotoxicidad del producto. Suproterenol: Las cantidades administradas a pacientes asmaticos fueron inadecuadas debido a la consideracion de los tests en animales como validos, Eraldin, Flenac, produciendo la muerte a 3.500 personas solo en Gran Bretaña. Manoplax, Dietilestilbostrol, Zomax, Ibufenac, Enbrel, Fialuridi
Yolanda Plaza Ruiz | 02/05/08 - 7:47 pm | #

A mi la ciencia médica no me ha servido nunca para nada, nunca me han curado ninguna dolencia, en algunos casos ciertos medicamentos que he tomado ha sido peor el remedio que la enfermedad. Por lo que a mi respecta todos esos animales torturados y asesinados han muerto en vano ya que nunca voy al médico.
Spooky | Homepage | 02/05/08 - 9:05 pm | #

Animal experiments are both unnecessary and unreliable. They ´re unnecessary as nowadays, fortunately, there are a number of alternatives available, better research methods and scientifically advanced and modern techniques that aren´t carried out at the expense of millions of animals´ suffering and pain.
These alternatives include epidemiology, patient studies (such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging or fMRI), autopsies and biopsies, in vitro cell and tissue cultures and computer modelling. It was thanks to epidemiology, not to animal experiments, that the links between cigarette smoking and cancer, between a sedentary lifestyle and heart disease, were first discovered.
Testing on animals is unreliable as well, since human and animal anatomy is significantly different. Therefore humans suffer different diseases, react differently to drugs,... etc.

Laboratories all over the world are using the alternatives I ´ve mentioned before. They should be spread widely, yet they aren´t. Why? Just due to the economic interest of many companies, or even because of a lack of knowledge in these ethical techniques.

I suppose you consider animals to be inferior beings because they can ´t speak or because they´re less intelligent (that´s called specism). Then would you accept experiments on babies and on mentally handicapped persons?

No matter how long we ´ve to wait until animal experiments are put to an end, we´ll never stop our struggle for animal rights.

By the way, I see you really care for children and for human beings. However, you ´ve the following message at the top of this blog: "For every animal you don´t eat, I´m going to eat three". Did you know that a huge number of children from the Third World could be fed on all the cereals that were required to feed every three animals you eat? According to Jean Mayer, a nutritionist from the University of Harvard, the reduction of only 10% of meat production would provide enough cereals for 60 million people.
Iratxe Burgos | 03/05/08 - 11:22 am | #

Some substitutes for animal experimentation exist, but they cannot totally replace them. If they are so good, you might as well ask for all human trials to be cancelled. Various forms of testing are complementary rather than mutually substitutable.

If animals are equal to us, they would be entitled to the same rights as us, but even animal rights activists would not agree on that (imagine rescuing animals from droughts, spending money on research to save animals from exotic diseases and such). One would also question why there is specism against plants.

And if you really cared for animals, you would eat more free range animals since that kills fewer of them than grain harvesting.

And the food problem is about distribution rather than total supply. Even if the whole world turned vegetarian, there would be people going hungry.
Agagooga | Homepage | 03/05/08 - 2:04 pm | #

La experimentacion con animales es cruel, antinatural pero sobretodo... in útil. La mayoría de la gente sabe que los experimento realizados a especies de animales no humanos no son nunca aplicables a los humanos. Ojalá experimentaran contigo para poder salvar a toda una aldea africana ¿o es que tu vida vale más que la cientos de pesonas? No creo que valga más ni que la de un insecto.
Yo | 04/05/08 - 2:26 am | #

Sois una panda de sucios asesinos.

¡¡¡¡NO A LA EXPERIMENTACION ANIMAL!!!.

Mejor experimentar con vosotros, exceptuando el cerebro claro, porque NO LO TENEIS, EN SU LUGAR TENEIS MIERDA HEDIONDA Y TÓXICA.

HIJOS DE LA GRAN PUTA, VUESTRAS MADRES SON LAS MAS INFECTAS ZORRAS QUE HAN PISADO UN BURDEL.

Y al final las expulsaron por contaminar a los clientes.
Ramsés | Homepage | 04/05/08 - 2:28 am | #

我喜欢吃猪肉
Agagooga | Homepage | 04/05/08 - 2:46 am | #

saying that animal studies are unnecessary because other research methods are available is like saying surgery is unnecessary because we can just take medicine.
gfttw | 04/05/08 - 4:07 am | #

While we're at it, surgery kills many people by accident. Therefore surgery is harmful to us. Let's stop going for surgery!
Agagooga | Homepage | 04/05/08 - 11:01 am | #

Generally, medicines are first tested on animals, yet finally men are used as guinea pigs, since until humans do not try these medicaments, the real effect on men is unknown.
It is true that there are a few and very specific cases in which no alternatives exist (at the moment), due to the reasons I mentioned yesterday (mainly for economic interests). However, I think that what people should do is encourage the use of new techniques that will not require animals.
A number of animal rights groups, such as ADI (Animal Defenders International) spent last year over a quarter of a million pounds funding developments in medical and scientific research (for instance, they have funded research into cancer, Parkinson ´s, developed microsurgery techniques,... etc.). The big difference is the research they are supporting does not study animals.
Every year, millions of animals are tortured and exterminated in experiments for military purposes. Conventional, chemical and bacteriological weapons do not save lives; quite the opposite, they are used to massacre countries. Cosmetics do not save lives either. These two purposes represent the majority of animal experiments, as only 10% of animal investigations go to health.

Animals have as much capacity to experience pain and fear as humans. Suffering entails the interest in avoiding such suffering, as this is experienced as disagreeable. Those who have this capacity (including all animals) are interested in being free and in living. Therefore animal life must be respected as well. We do not ask to allow animals to go to university or to court, we only want them to be entitled, at least, the same basic rights that humans have, which I consider to be inalienable.

With regard to specism against plants, the term "specism" is only used to refer to discrimination based on animal species difference. Anyway, although plants are alive, they do not have a nervous system. Hence they cannot experience sensations or mental states.

I did not understand very well what you meant saying that "eating more free range animals kills fewer of them than grain harvesting". Please, could you explain yourself more clearly?

Even if hunger was not completely eradicated, that would not justify animal holocaust.

Today ´s surgery has nothing to do with old surgery. Many years ago recovery was long, but now things have changed. If nowadays there are more effective and less aggressive methods available, why continue using old surgery methods? It is like a surgeon still operating in the old way and refusing to use the more modern methods.
Yes, surgery might kill people, but that is quite rare.
Iratxe Burgos | 04/05/08 - 2:30 pm | #

You hear every where that there are to many people in the world, so why do we want more and for them to live longer, this will destroy our world even sooner that people think.
Also more people mean more pollution and more pressure to our small world.
So no need to experiment on animals, maybe only on people (if they accept).
Adam.
Adam | Homepage | 05/05/08 - 1:13 am | #

@_@
If nothing else this is clear proof that not eating meat makes you clinically insane.
gfttw | 05/05/08 - 1:23 am | #

Siempre he pensado que los que experimentan con animales tienen en su mente algo de sadismo. ¿Como si no se puede hacer sufrir tanto a un ser vivo? Y para qué? Para alargar la vida a los humanos a los 120 años?
Que dejen a los animales tranquilos, de una vez.
lali | 05/05/08 - 1:52 am | #

Claaaro, como ahora no hay metodos alternativos de investigacion... ¿creen que por torturar brutalmente a un animal, a cientos, a miles de ellos, van a ser los salvadores del mundo? Entiendo los experimentos que sean con fines medicos (aunque no los comparto para nada), pero realmente nos venden la gran mayoria como experimentos sanitarios cuando realmente se destinan a la cosmetica... Bueno, sinceramente, creo que todo lo que podía decir al respecto ya lo han dicho anteriormente en otros comentarios, asi que simplemente me reafirmo en mi posicion en contra de la experimentacion animal (no me considero radical para nada, pero no tolero que se maltraten animales asi cuando hay tecnicas de investigacion alternativas)
Lunalunera | Homepage | 05/05/08 - 6:05 am | #

1) Cuando esten agonizando con los horribles dolores del cancer, recuerden la cantidad de cadaveres de animales que se comieron. Comer carne produce cancer de colon, ignorantes.
2) La experimentacion en animales solo garantiza que las casas farmaceuticas irresponsables comercializen sus venenos a los tontos que creen que la fisiologia de un animal es como la de los humanos.
Lizzie Valsan | 05/05/08 - 6:45 am | #

Iratxe Burgos: If the real effect on men is unknown until human try the medications, doesn't that mean epidemiology, patient studies (such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging or fMRI), autopsies and biopsies, in vitro cell and tissue cultures and computer modelling all do not work?

The point of having multiple stages of tests is to ascertain with increasing confidence that the treatment is useful. And yes, I do support alternatives to animal testing, but the fact is that animal testing is still needed. We should not have animal testing where it is unneeded, but I believe even Peter Singer supports some form of animal testing.

The problems with war and weapons are not confined to animal testing. You do not need to be against animal testing to be against conventional, chemical and bacteriological weapons. As for cosmetics I think most people are against cosmetics testing on animals.

If pain and fear were the defining criteria, would you support killing babies, mentally retarded and comatose people, since they cannot feel pain and fear? And plants do experience pain of a sort; just because they do not have central nervous systems does not mean it is not hurtful to them. If we cannot discriminate based on species why can we discriminate with only one definition of 'pain'?

What sort of basic rights do humans have that you think animals should have? The right to life? So why do we let so many animals die in nature to natural disasters and the predations of other animals? Should we not save them as much as we can? After all, we do not let humans in Darfur die - we try to help and save them. We donate money to feed poor people - should we donate money to feed starving animals as well?

"eating more free range animals kills fewer of them than grain harvesting": grain harvesting kills many field mice. If you eat cattle and lambs, the field mice don't die because they can escape from the cows' hooves. http://icwdm.org/WDC%20website/a...s/ leastharm.htm

'Animal holocaust'? If you think a holocaust is going on, you should start killing meat eaters, just as you would invade Nazi Germany to save Jews from the Holocaust.

Adam: ????????
Agagooga | Homepage | 05/05/08 - 3:52 pm | #

Sentimental liberals. Heh.
the fell bat | 06/05/08 - 4:36 pm | #

Whoever started this blog - do you know what helps these killers of yours-cancer and heart disease ?

Animal fats, junk food, stress, negative emotions. You know yourself, don't you?

Go to your doctor and he will ask you to eat more fruit and vegetables,avoid animal fats , stay positive.

Are you intelligent enough to see the interdependence?

Now think of the amount of adrenaline the killed animal's body produce - you eat that.The strongest biological poison! Plus all the preservatives and chemicals they add to make the decomposing corpses taste good.

Do you really expect your body to cope with that and remain healthy?

Not even mentioning the agression which consumption of meat triggers (and that is a proven fact, just google it).

And than, after creating your own health problems by consuming murdered ones- you are looking for more innocent to die in suffer on the researches to fight with the deseases YOU created!!!!

What to say, such rascals will always exist- and as long as you preach your nonsense- WE WILL PROTEST!!!

You know, where the big money involved- morals are low, murder becomes a routine. Don't fall for these lies they say to make you buy their products.

Simply waste of your time ;-)And money.

I think they just fooled you and you are confused. It is so obvious.
But you can do so much better!


Here is the friendly suggestion - become a vegetarian, enjoy the healthy tasteful lifestyle with us.

To be the Nature's Friend is so much more fan and pleasure!

And you know what- Mother Nature does reciplicate and support her children ! It's a mutual loving relationship ;-)

Don't worry, you won't get your cancer if live in harmony with the Environment.

It is so easy to be happy ;-)))
Tatiana | 06/05/08 - 7:13 pm | #

Vegetables live in oppression,
Served on our tables each night.
This killing of veggies is madness,
I say we take up the fight.
Agagooga | Homepage | 06/05/08 - 7:56 pm | #

Idiots. :D who don't even know what Nature *is* and come around preaching their veggie nonsense.

seems there's a reason that brain-dead people whose bodies still function are called vegetables. :p
the fell bat | 06/05/08 - 7:58 pm | #

all those against animal testing.. please volunteer yourself for phase 2 drug testing! this way, we save the animals, shave off 6 years of precious time from drug development, and even better, we see the precise effects on human, faster, better!

if not, please reject all drugs and surgery..

after all, drugs were first tested on animals to ensure its safety and efficacy and surgeries were first practised on pigs.

such hypocrisy.
vivian | 06/05/08 - 11:10 pm | #

this is why i support http://www.vhemt.org

"It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn't what it used to be."
nw.t | 07/05/08 - 12:09 pm | #

espero que no cojais la gripe...
Raquel | 10/05/08 - 3:29 am | #

killer!!!
mother earth | 01/11/08 - 7:21 am | #