set of cunts, who should themselves be experimented on.

set of cunts, who should themselves be experimented on.

 

 

I agree

 

Hope they get some untreatable disease because no new drug has been tested

seal clubbing

 

tis the future

seal clubbing

 

tis the future

 

Aaaawwwweeeee..thats aweful! [-X

Join the "club" - http://www.newgrounds.com/seals/bop.html

I thought Garlic Bread was the future?

I thought Garlic Bread was the future?

 

Garlic Bread is the future! As you can see in the picture the bloke is hitting the seal with a garlic baguette!

 

I thought Garlic Bread was the future?

 

Garlic Bread is the future! As you can see in the picture the bloke is hitting the seal with a garlic baguette!

 

 

Hope it bites his fcuking arm off

Would any of you be tested without knowing tests have previously been conducted?

its part of the life chain

its a rodent's use in life to be tested on

 

Stick these fuckin animal rights cunts in old trafford on a match day with franz ferdinand and blow the fuckers up

Was listening to BBC GMR on my way home from work. Presenter was Alan Beswick.

 

And I quote:

 

Animal rights activists? What's all that about? Animals do not have rights. Rights are a human concept, human concepts have no place in the animal kingdom.

 

Too true!

instead of putting perfume in the monkeys eyes, why dont they just put it on their wrists

Heard a debate this morning on Five Live. Interviewing an activist - "if you or your family needed urgent life-saving treatment and the drugs used had been tested on animals - would you go ahead and have the treatment"

activist - "errr, well, yes, but..."

interviewer - "thanks, and now over to the weather"

scene at radio station (presumably) - activist looking gobsmacked - just fcked up his entire argument!

PRICELESS.

this gerbil place they have shut down was licenced and controlled.

 

now the drug companies will just import them from non licenced places abroad.

 

the gerbils/hamsters/guinea pigs will be treated worse.

 

i am sure the activists are very proud.

 

 

did they ever return the dead womans remains ?

did they ever return the dead womans remains ?

 

their argument was that no-one had proof they had stolen the remains - it could have just been co-incidence.

 

rich-kid students with too much f*cking time on their hands.

 

is it true these Swiss Finishing schools have add-on courses for "Protesting at Hard Working Folk"; "Tree Hugging"; "Tree Hugging Advanced"; etc.

yes smiley, its true, also on the college prospectus is

 

'learning to deal with the silver spoon in your mouth'.

'how to take preventative action against everything'

'how to sail on yatchs and going ski-ing in the alps whilst maintaining your aura of being down to earth'

 

 

yes, animal testing is cruel- it is also a nescesity.

i was very troubled by animal testing when i was in my early teens, but at that age its difficult to grasp the concepts of the adult and real world. If any animal rights activists had 'got to me' while i was in that phase then i could have a very different opinion today. I remember so many horrible pictures of mice with tumours nearly as big as their bodies, or 6 legs-etc ( maybe the dingles are the result of experiments eh?)- and those images are horrific-and seemed so cruel and barbaric to me that i used to get really upset about it. im the girl who takes spiders out of the bath and puts them in the garden really gently. I hate to see pain and suffering in any living thing, and even wonder if mowing the lawn hurts it. But i also understand why these things have to be done.

Whilst i can accept testing medicines on animals ( after all-medicine is essential and life saving), i have problems with vanity products being tested on them, i wont buy deodrant or make up thats been tested on them. And using them for cloning experiments etc freaks me out, but yes- if my kids needed a new heart 'growing' for them then i would probably jump at the chance. Also remember a picture of a rat that had a human ear grafted onto its back. How far is too far to go??

Life saving research-yes.

Satisfying wierd curiosities-no.

 

ok,,,,rant over,,,,,youre all safe now!!!!

A good friend of mine is vegan and into animal rights stuff. Here's what he had to say when I sent him an email asking about all this:

 

"the guinea pigs at newchurch were and still are treated like absolute shit. They exist in absolutely appalling conditions, and the only thing they have to look forward to is being shipped off to some lab to be stuffed full of various chemicals and eventually culled. For a living thing that has sentience and can feel pain, fear, and all sorts of emotion, this is unnaceptable. No living creature with a sentient mind should have to be put through that in this day and age. When laboratory alternatives are abound - stem cell research and computer predictive software have been proven to be absolutely more effective than testing on animals. The animal testing industry is not there for the interests of scientific advancement. If that was the case then they wouldn't be repeating countless tests which were conclusive over 30 years ago. If scientific research was as crucial as people seem to believe it is, then why are medications that were seen as safe when used on dogs, mice, etc now seen to have dangerous side effects on humans? not only are these medications a danger to people who take them, but they've also needlessly killed thousands of animals. By a similar margin, aspirin, which is an everyday medication used by thousands of people every day, is lethal to dogs and other mammals. You see, when scientists now test medications and chemicals on artificial tissue, the accuracy of the results are much more accurate. Similarly, we have enough knowledge of the human system to have computer simulations which are way more effective than putting medicine x in rabbits eyes.

 

back to the topic at hand, I feel that the tactics used by some ALF individuals were cruel and awful, and I actually dislike actions like that, but all the same, they got the job done, newchurch is shutting down it's guinea pig breeding so it was effective. I find it strange how people find digging up someone's dead body more horrific than the suffering of million of animals all over the world. Something's very wrong when people are more shocked by someone already dead than the continuing unjustified death all over the world of creatures both human and non-human. The body of that old woman is no different to the body of anything else. It doesn't have a soul, it's not got an afterlife, it's a collection of dead cells, like everything else on this planet that ever dies. What's the difference between pig husks being burned in an abbatoir or puppies getting fed into incinerators and some lady who's body get's fished out of hallowed ground. Just because we wear clothes and believe in some god and think we're masters of this earth doesn't make us anything. We all come from the ground and that's where we're going back to."

A rabbit escaped from an animal research establishment and pretty soon met another rabbit. This rabbit, in turn, introduced the research rabbit to female rabbits. After hours of fun and debauchery, the research rabbit bade farewell and explained that he was going back to the laboratory.

"Why?" asked all his new-found chums and sex partners.

"I'm gasping for a smoke!" He replied.

well, lets think about this.

"the guinea pigs at newchurch were and still are treated like absolute shit. They exist in absolutely appalling conditions"

in that case report your findings to the authorities who can then investigate - the farm do not have the right to treat their animals like shit and can be shut down for doing so. There's a difference between protesting at the way a place is run and protesting at its purpose. Then again, its unlikely the animals are invariably in such a bad way - after all, they need to be healthy to be used. if a contant stream on completely fucked up animals was coming out of the place it would have shut years ago.

 

"No living creature with a sentient mind should have to be put through that in this day and age. When laboratory alternatives are abound - stem cell research and computer predictive software have been proven to be absolutely more effective than testing on animals."

If he is going to say this he had better know an awful lot about stem cell research and computer predictive software. I mean really know - read the primary literature, talked to the people at the cutting edge (all done with an open mind on his part as well) - and not just be parroting summat his mates have told him. Plus we'll have the bloody born again squad stopping stem cell work soon enough.

 

"The animal testing industry is not there for the interests of scientific advancement. If that was the case then they wouldn't be repeating countless tests which were conclusive over 30 years ago. If scientific research was as crucial as people seem to believe it is, then why are medications that were seen as safe when used on dogs, mice, etc now seen to have dangerous side effects on humans? not only are these medications a danger to people who take them, but they've also needlessly killed thousands of animals. By a similar margin, aspirin, which is an everyday medication used by thousands of people every day, is lethal to dogs and other mammals. You see, when scientists now test medications and chemicals on artificial tissue, the accuracy of the results are much more accurate. Similarly, we have enough knowledge of the human system to have computer simulations which are way more effective than putting medicine x in rabbits eyes. "

Well, first off him and his mates will undoubtedly be protesting against all animal lab use. That is not limited to simple "testing"; indeed the key advances on the current drawing boards involve sussing out just what is possible - how areas as diverse as neural pathways, immune systems, spinal reconstruction can be moved on. This is nowt to do with "testing" - its to do with fundamental advances in how tissues in living things work. If he breaks his back next week and faces life as a quadriplegic is he still going to say he'd not want some rats experimented on in order to give him hope of rehabilitation? And if so, are they going to target Rentokil next - I mean look at the untold misery they cause small mammals.

 

"I find it strange how people find digging up someone's dead body more horrific than the suffering of million of animals all over the world."

Yeh, and I find it strange how some people can put the suffering of millions of animals all over the world ahead of the suffering of millions of people all over the world.

 

Finally, so he's "vegan and into animal rights stuff" - well fine, thats his choice. And there's the rub - he has a choice. A few years from now he may or may not be vegan and will probably be "into" another hobby. But the key is choice. If he wants to boycott all pharmaceutical products and cut himself off from modern medicine then fine. Thats his choice. But others have their choices - and many have no choice. One of my brothers has been suffering from Parkinsons for 10 or more years and you see how that completely debilitates someone - its not just the shaking stuff, it's summat that completely transforms their life, completely and utterly for the worst. He has no ragging choice about that; much research is ongoing on this front and by definition it involves animal brain tissue. Now I guess he can choose ultimately whether or not he undergoes a treatment which results from such work. But some ragging hippy vegan bastards do not have the right to decide that for him!!!!

If he is going to say this he had better know an awful lot about stem cell research and computer predictive software

 

It's going to be tricky replying to this stuff as I'm having to put myself in my mate's shoes, but fcuk it. First, he does know his stuff inside out, don't worry about that. He's got a sizeable brain of his own and does not need to be told what to think by 'his mates.'

 

Well, first off him and his mates will undoubtedly be protesting against all animal lab use.

 

That's a pretty big assumption to make and whasmore it's a wrong one. I don't think mike would turn round to anyone and claim tht ALL animal testing, right across the board is wrong and should never be countenanced in any circumstances. But he has got a point, I think, when the animals are kept in poor conditions and it's dubious in the first place what good the tests will do and secondly whether other means of testing, such as stem cell research and computer predictive stuff, would be more effective.

 

Yeh, and I find it strange how some people can put the suffering of millions of animals all over the world ahead of the suffering of millions of people all over the world.

 

That isn't the point at all. His point overarching all this is that it is highly questionable whether testing on animals is in fact the most effective way of determining how effective a drug will be. If it's not, then firstly the lives of these animals are being wasted needlessly considering they're all culled after tests anyway and secondly if, for instance predictive software can do a better job thaen it's in fact extrmely negligent of the drug compnaies not to take up that option! So by testing animals when there is a more accurate alternative available, the drug companies are, in fact, indirectly responsible for human death!

 

But some ragging hippy vegan bastards do not have the right to decide that for him!!!!

 

He might be a vegan but he is certainly not a hippy nor, as far as I can tell, a bastard.

What's the difference between pig husks being burned in an abbatoir or puppies getting fed into incinerators and some lady who's body get's fished out of hallowed ground.

 

There's a difference to me. Like the guinea pig farm and Auschwitz - very different in my eyes but absolutely the same according to some ragging div on TV the other night.

 

Fair enough if folk want to think of animals as equal to humans, but it's trying to impose their minority view on the majority - by violent means - that's wrong.

"It's going to be tricky replying to this stuff as I'm having to put myself in my mate's shoes, but fcuk it. First, he does know his stuff inside out, don't worry about that. He's got a sizeable brain of his own and does not need to be told what to think by 'his mates.'"

 

Fair enough though like I said, he'll have to have "read the primary literature {ie medical journals}, talked to the people at the cutting edge".

Its easy to talk about "computer predictive stuff" but I can assure you it certainly does not work when it comes to predicting chemical pysiological activity (eg as anti-cancer agents) or reactivity (eg as catalysts) as the driving force for both is still "hit it and hope" (though in the former case it can certainly be done in vitrio rather than in vivo).

 

 

That's a pretty big assumption to make and whasmore it's a wrong one. I don't think mike would turn round to anyone and claim tht ALL animal testing, right across the board is wrong and should never be countenanced in any circumstances. But he has got a point, I think, when the animals are kept in poor conditions and it's dubious in the first place what good the tests will do and secondly whether other means of testing, such as stem cell research and computer predictive stuff, would be more effective.

 

Fair does, what I meant was not necessarily you mate himself but more generically - after all most of the group who have just shut that place down will be moving on to other projects and most that get interviewed on the tv seem to be against it all full stop. If not then it would help their cause enormously to be more precise about what they are arguing.

Stem cell stuff is in its infancy and, as pointed out, computer work is as well. After all if stem cell technology is to work you still have to test it. It may be that stem cells can be used to bridge gaps in broken spinal columns or replenish areas of the brain that are fucked - but you'd still have to do some animal testing to show this.

 

 

That isn't the point at all. His point overarching all this is that it is highly questionable whether testing on animals is in fact the most effective way of determining how effective a drug will be.

 

But is he qualified to question that??

As the following Guardian article points out 500 signaturies, including 3 Nobel Prize winners, highlight the need for at least some animal experimentation.

"More than 500 leading UK scientists and doctors have pledged their support for animal testing in medical research but acknowledged that, where possible, such experiments should be replaced by methods that do not use animals.

The scientists have signed a declaration reaffirming that animals are required in order to achieve advances in medical research that enable "people throughout the world to enjoy a better quality of life".

The Research Defence Society, which drew up the new statement, says it is not related to Wednesday's announcement that a family-run guinea pig breeding farm was to close following intimidation by animal rights extremists.

News of the decision to close Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire prompted scientists to warn that further incidents could make Britain a place where it is impossible to carry out clinically relevant research.

The Hall family, who ran the guinea pig farm, which supplied animals for medical research, had been subjected to a six-year hate campaign by extremists, including the desecration of the grave of 82-year-old Gladys Hammond, the mother-in-law of co-owner Christopher Hall.

Launching the new declaration, RDS executive director Simon Festing said: "We are delighted to have gathered over 500 signatures from top UK academic scientists and doctors in less than one month. It shows the strength and depth of support for humane animal research in this country."

The new move echoes a similar declaration in 1990, which went on to gather more than 1,000 signatures.

Groups opposed to vivisection criticised the new statement, saying it showed no progress had been made towards replacing animals in scientific research in 15 years.

Signed by three Nobel prize winners and 190 fellows of the Royal Society, the new declaration states that a "small, but vital" part of medical research involves animals. It says researchers should gain the medical and scientific benefits that animal experiments can provide, while pointing out that they should make every effort to safeguard animal welfare and minimise suffering."

 

Now as I say it may well be that there's not much your mate would disagree with from the above - but that certainly aint true for very many of the people involved in activities such as those that got the farm closed down.

Bear in mind as well that there are two things we can say about drug companies:

a) they are profit driven and thus do not chuck good money after bad

they are intensely sensitive to PR issues.

In the light of the above two points I cant for the life of me (and, you never know, it may yet be) see why they would be doing animal work if it wasnt necessary. If computer techniques are so great they'd have closed down the animal houses years ago, sacked the technicians and replaced all that waste and mess with a shiny room full of laptops. But they havent...

everyone has a hobby and I cant be arsed reading it all coz I couldn't give a flying f??ck, but in my hmble opinion saying this makes him a first class c??nt.

 

I find it strange how people find digging up someone's dead body more horrific than the suffering of million of animals all over the world.

What's the difference between pig husks being burned in an abbatoir or puppies getting fed into incinerators and some lady who's body get's fished out of hallowed ground.

 

There's a difference to me. Like the guinea pig farm and Auschwitz - very different in my eyes but absolutely the same according to some ragging div on TV the other night.

 

Fair enough if folk want to think of animals as equal to humans, but it's trying to impose their minority view on the majority - by violent means - that's wrong.

 

the conditions in Auschwitz were worse than in the hamster/gerbil farm.

 

where all the animal rights stuff falls dwon is not just what they are protesting about but how they protest. they are a minority group trying to enforce their views and beliefs on the majority by violence and intimidation which is simply wrong.

 

if i decide it is wrong from them to be allowed to walk round in dirty clothes sticking of shit and therefore kidnap one of them make them have shower and get a hair cut would they think that was ok ?

 

fcuk em, make em get a job a wash a hair cut then send them live in any other country in the world (they can choose as long as they can prove the country has a better record on animal rights than the uk) if they can not find one use them for experiments and spare the ragging gerbils.

where all the animal rights stuff falls dwon is not just what they are protesting about but how they protest. they are a minority group trying to enforce their views and beliefs on the majority by violence and intimidation which is simply wrong.

 

Which is pretty much the same as any terrorrist organisation! They should be dealt with using the new anti-terrorrist laws.