View Full Version : The cost of 'safe' drugs?
awa355
3rd May 2014, 21:42
I know we need to have drugs for various reasons but the testing of animals to get these drugs ok'd sickens me.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10004157/87-000-animals-a-year-die-in-scientific-testing
Dont know if there is an alternative, I certainly wish there was.
tigertim20
3rd May 2014, 22:30
interesting that this has come up with the whole legal highs debacle.
I dont like the 'legal highs' - Im NOT defending them, but the 87000 animals that die arent all lovely wee labrador pups that could have had a loving family, most of them are rats and mice. Yes, a number of larger animals are used as well.
Its also worth noting that the 'experiments' on the 87000 animals also overs things like anti cancer drugs, and research on other medical issues, new surgical ideas, implant procedure tests, and a number of things that are aimed at directly impacting the quality of human life in a positive sense.
Also includes cosmetics testing etc.
Im anti 'legal highs' and anti testing on animals generally speaking, but the way its being implied is that the legal highs are responsible for a large portion of testing which simply isnt true.
Waihou Thumper
3rd May 2014, 23:00
Dont know if there is an alternative, I certainly wish there was.
Get the people that want them, smoke them, inject, ingest... and put them in a room for the weekend and let them go for it.....
Then let the LD50 work it's magic!
I cannot believe there are wankers out there that still allow this to happen!
New Zealand still allows animal testing for medical research but the rest......
Just ship it off shore and do the research there and see what results we get.
Just as bad.....We aren't clean and green, just bull shit everyone into thinking that...
Waihou Thumper
3rd May 2014, 23:03
Also includes cosmetics testing etc.
And that is the worst....
Spraying and rubbing cosmetics in the eyes of Rabbits that have been collared and caged to see if the latest eye shadow or blusher has an effect!
Check out most SDS sheets from chemical suppliers...
'severe irritant' Rabbit...and others...
It is pathetic!
tigertim20
3rd May 2014, 23:54
Get the people that want them, smoke them, inject, ingest... and put them in a room for the weekend and let them go for it.....
Then let the LD50 work it's magic!
I cannot believe there are wankers out there that still allow this to happen!
New Zealand still allows animal testing for medical research but the rest......
Just ship it off shore and do the research there and see what results we get.
Just as bad.....We aren't clean and green, just bull shit everyone into thinking that...
human testing is the next step for everything once it passes the animal phase. A lot of students supplement their income by participating in exactly those trials. should be a balance though.
I understand animal testing for things of medical significance that positively impact, or potentially save human lives,
however things that are based on human desire or vanity, should be limited to human testing only - using willing human participants who wish to benefit from the development of said products.
And that is the worst....
Spraying and rubbing cosmetics in the eyes of Rabbits that have been collared and caged to see if the latest eye shadow or blusher has an effect!
Check out most SDS sheets from chemical suppliers...
'severe irritant' Rabbit...and others...
It is pathetic!
I couldn't give a fuck less about rabbits, they're a pest - though I suppose that comes down to an individuals perspective as to what animals have value - I suppose there are cunts out there to whom Labradors are just an annoying little fucker who barks incessantly in their neighbors back yard . . .
unstuck
4th May 2014, 06:02
two fiddy an ounce cuz!
Rip off, I suppose it's cabbage too.
oldrider
4th May 2014, 10:02
Personal choice includes personal consequence ... eat poison you die! :wacko:
Berries
4th May 2014, 10:04
Eat healthily and you still die.
Especially if you are a beagle.
Bit of a toughie as I'm sure some areas of research take a lot more care with them than others. So many good things have come as a result of it that I doubt would have happened otherwise. Spose I could stick my hand up to run round with an ear growing on my back for the winter.....hmm.....
I suppose there are cunts out there to whom a Labrador is just another test subject
http://www.gamingmasters.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/blippitt.com_wp_content_uploads_2009_10_Evil_Laugh .png
Katman
4th May 2014, 11:02
Dont know if there is an alternative, I certainly wish there was.
There certainly are testing methods that don't require animals. Computer modelling and advances in 'in vitro' testing have made animal testing unnecessary these days. These non-animal testing methods produce far more accurate results as well.
The only draw back is they are more expensive than testing on animals but in the case of legal highs that shouldn't be of any concern to the general public. The manufacturers of these products are who will be incurring the cost and the government should be making it as difficult as they can for the manufacturers to get their products back on shop shelves.
By giving access to testing on animals the government is simply making life easier for the manufacturers.
There certainly are testing methods that don't require animals. Computer modelling and advances in 'in vitro' testing have made animal testing unnecessary these days. These non-animal testing methods produce far more accurate results as well.
The only draw back is they are more expensive than testing on animals but in the case of legal highs that shouldn't be of any concern to the general public. The manufacturers of these products are who will be incurring the cost and the government should be making it as difficult as they can for the manufacturers to get their products back on shop shelves.
By giving access to testing on animals the government is simply making life easier for the manufacturers.
Are you secretly an alcohol or 'big tobacco' representative? :p
FJRider
4th May 2014, 11:22
By giving access to testing on animals the government is simply making life easier for the manufacturers.
And ... taxing the manufacturers heavily for the product as well ... :laugh:
The "Easy Life" costs ... :blank:
SMOKEU
4th May 2014, 12:07
I'm keen to "test" some drugs, but only the good ones. So if anyone is giving away free samples to test, count me in!
two fiddy an ounce cuz!
Bush or skunks?
SWIM can get some nice outdoor bush for $200 an ounce, it's really nice stuff.
Bush or skunks?
SWIM can get some nice outdoor bush for $200 an ounce, it's really nice stuff.
skunky bush.
that's not bad. might have to move to crackerchurch.
(it was a toss up between that and crackedchurch)
fuck it. got me a million dollar view, pass the peace pipe...
I know we need to have drugs for various reasons but the testing of animals to get these drugs ok'd sickens me.
Dont know if there is an alternative, I certainly wish there was.
There is an alternative. It should be the humans that develop the shit and most importantly it should be the large pharmaceutical companies who pedal their concoctions.
All the chemicals that go into this "wonderful" product would quickly be eliminated if their CEO's were FORCED to take the product.
if their CEO's were FORCED to take the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBeW1NkoykE
:doobey: :headbang:
Ulsterkiwi
4th May 2014, 18:03
There certainly are testing methods that don't require animals. Computer modelling and advances in 'in vitro' testing have made animal testing unnecessary these days. These non-animal testing methods produce far more accurate results as well.
The only draw back is they are more expensive than testing on animals but in the case of legal highs that shouldn't be of any concern to the general public. The manufacturers of these products are who will be incurring the cost and the government should be making it as difficult as they can for the manufacturers to get their products back on shop shelves.
By giving access to testing on animals the government is simply making life easier for the manufacturers.
I didn't realise you were a biomedical scientist. What are the advances made with 'in vitro' testing you talk about? Since when did computer modelling produce more accurate results? How do you define 'accurate' I would be fascinated to read the scientific papers you obtained this information from.
I didnt realise that running a piece of software was more expensive than building, maintaining and staffing an animal research facility, much less breed the necessary animals and care for them in the specified manner.
Here is one way to think about the testing of new pharmaceuticals (NOT legal highs or cosmetics, I couldnt care less about them). Your mother has a form of cancer. The consultant comes in and explains there has been a new drug developed which might work. In laboratory tests the drug has been shown to kill cell cultures of cancer cells (in vitro testing) However there have been no tests conducted in a complex environment where the drug has to find its way to the targeted cells via a circulatory system, digestive system or respiratory system all controlled by complex neuro-endocrine mechanisms (in vivo testing). So we really dont know if it will screw one of those up and actually make things worse for your mother. But hey no mice or rats were harmed so its all good don't ya think?
not to sound edgy but who cares? I base nearly every meal around meat. Don't think twice about the 'farm' animals that are sacrificed for me. I eat eggs from caged chickens because I'm not paying twice the price for free range.
People see a puppy and hear the word 'legal highs' and they go up in arms. just because an animal is a fluffy doesn't mean it should be treated like a domestic pet goddess.
And we put down dogs all the time? let the little things enjoy a nice chemical high before they turn to dust.
The thing everyone should be discussing is how retarded our government is when there is a 'synthetic' cannabis that is worse than the real stuff and we're giving vegans heart attacks from worrying about puppies.
Katman
4th May 2014, 18:52
not to sound edgy but who cares? I base nearly every meal around meat. Don't think twice about the 'farm' animals that are sacrificed for me. I eat eggs from caged chickens because I'm not paying twice the price for free range.
People see a puppy and hear the word 'legal highs' and they go up in arms. just because an animal is a fluffy doesn't mean it should be treated like a domestic pet goddess.
And we put down dogs all the time? let the little things enjoy a nice chemical high before they turn to dust.
The thing everyone should be discussing is how retarded our government is when there is a 'synthetic' cannabis that is worse than the real stuff and we're giving vegans heart attacks from worrying about puppies.
You should take their place.
But hey no mice or rats were harmed so its all good don't ya think?
who the fuck are you to judge, jesus?
not to sound edgy but who cares? I base nearly every meal around meat. Don't think twice about the 'farm' animals that are sacrificed for me. I eat eggs from caged chickens because I'm not paying twice the price for free range.
you don't sound edgy. you sound like a consumeristic cunt. you're probably everything that's wrong with crackerjew society.
if you wouldn't kill it, you shouldn't be eating it.
karma.
Ulsterkiwi
4th May 2014, 19:01
who the fuck are you to judge, jesus?
judge? oh the irony of that question coming from you Akzle.........
Nope, I am not Jesus but I am better informed than most concerning what animal testing actually means and does not mean. Katmans assertions were completely erroneus, you would be upset if that wasnt pointed out would you not, great possessor of truth?
SMOKEU
4th May 2014, 19:01
you don't sound edgy. you sound like a consumeristic cunt. you're probably everything that's wrong with crackerjew society.
if you wouldn't kill it, you shouldn't be eating it.
karma.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
you don't sound edgy. you sound like a consumeristic cunt. you're probably everything that's wrong with crackerjew society.
if you wouldn't kill it, you shouldn't be eating it.
karma.
:killingme oh boy, do you avoid pak n save? do you farm all your own meat? Hope you don't ride your bike to much it might destroy the ozone layer. Hope you joined the vegans protest against the testing with your tin foil hat on, save the furry animals! forget about all the rest of the injustice in the world its dogs that matter! :nya:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
you probably could if you put the bong down for once.
Acting like i'm buying into the wrong things when you spend $250 on a ounce of plant matter that should be free :nya:
SMOKEU
4th May 2014, 19:27
you probably could if you put the bong down for once.
Acting like i'm buying into the wrong things when you spend $250 on a ounce of plant matter that should be free :nya:
It's not much different from people who pay $8 for a shot of vodka in a pub, when I can make around 3L of vodka for the same price, and it's just as good.
judge? oh the irony of that question coming from you Akzle.........
Nope, I am not Jesus but I am better informed than most concerning what animal testing actually means and does not mean. Katmans assertions were completely erroneus, you would be upset if that wasnt pointed out would you not, great possessor of truth?
well, i am the fucking ironing master. and shit.
i dont pay attention to him (sorry katman's ego)
better informed? they test shit on animals for the benefit of humans because they consider them a lesser being. god complex much? it's okay. god haz lulz at them.
the whole argument is fuckeroo because they still allow alcohol to be sold and that costs "the country" *gasp*, what? how much? sorry, i couldn't hear over the sound of THE DEAFENING HYPOCRISY OF YOUR SOCIETY.
:killingme oh boy, do you avoid pak n save? do you farm all your own meat? Hope you don't ride your bike to much it might destroy the ozone layer. Hope you joined the vegans protest against the testing with your tin foil hat on, save the furry animals! forget about all the rest of the injustice in the world its dogs that matter! :nya:
i do avoid paknsave (i take my hemp kiti to binn inn. au cuz.) i do not farm all my own meat. i'd like to. i have/would/do kill meat every now and then.
and no, new guy, i don't ride my bike, not at all. sometimes i sit on it and make vroom vroom noises and pretend i'm a big boy, but then i got the internets, so i just jump on and mouth off, so everyone else knows i'm a big boy, too.
no protest. active indifference. your society's problem. good luck.
bet you couldn't so much as skin a rabbit. let alone cook it. fucking poofter.
awa355
4th May 2014, 19:57
:killingme oh boy, do you avoid pak n save? do you farm all your own meat? Hope you don't ride your bike to much it might destroy the ozone layer. Hope you joined the vegans protest against the testing with your tin foil hat on, save the furry animals! forget about all the rest of the injustice in the world its dogs that matter! :nya:
The OP topic wasn't about killing animals for human consumption, or just dogs, or saving the planet. It was about needless suffering of animals to satisfy human vainity ( cosmetic industries ), leisure pleasure ( legal highs ) etc. There has to be an alternative.
The OP topic wasn't about killing animals for human consumption, or just dogs, or saving the planet. It was about needless suffering of animals to satisfy human vainity ( cosmetic industries ), leisure pleasure ( legal highs ) etc. There has to be an alternative.
how would you be if the market was DEregulated. any nigger could sell any shit. as long as what they was selling rhymd wit wat they was sayin. yaaa' mean, dawg?
let people be the monkeys. (they are already)
but hey, that involves some kind of freedom of choice, and making decisions for yourself, fucken self determination yo!
... which, thanks to your government, you're no longer required to do.
so kick back, sip a steaming cup of shut-the-fuck-up-and-vote, and enjoy it.
Katman
5th May 2014, 08:11
I didn't realise you were a biomedical scientist. What are the advances made with 'in vitro' testing you talk about? Since when did computer modelling produce more accurate results? How do you define 'accurate' I would be fascinated to read the scientific papers you obtained this information from.
I didnt realise that running a piece of software was more expensive than building, maintaining and staffing an animal research facility, much less breed the necessary animals and care for them in the specified manner.
Well it would appear that the government have accepted that there are viable alternative test methods rather than testing on animals.
Maybe you should fuck off back to your expensive animal research facility.
Ulsterkiwi
5th May 2014, 10:26
Well it would appear that the government have accepted that there are viable alternative test methods rather than testing on animals.
Maybe you should fuck off back to your expensive animal research facility.
My point was concerning the development of medical pharmaceuticals not legal highs. Computer modelling cannot replace in vivo testing if this were the case noone would use animal models. I asked you to explain what developments were made in in vitro testing and to define what you meant by 'accurate'. Still waiting.......
oh I see, you told me to fuck off, so that wins the argument, must remember that. We should tell the UN about that ploy, then we could fix the world's problems.
Katman
5th May 2014, 11:08
oh I see, you told me to fuck off, so that wins the argument....
Correct.
:finger:
Banditbandit
5th May 2014, 14:28
two fiddy an ounce cuz!
Fuck me - I paid $150 for 50 grams the other day ... 250 AN OUNCE!!! (28 grams) ya rip off Ngā Bush pricks !!!
SMOKEU
5th May 2014, 14:40
Fuck me - I paid $150 for 50 grams the other day ... 250 AN OUNCE!!! (28 grams) ya rip off Ngā Bush pricks !!!
Skunks or bush?
Fuck me - I paid $150 for 50 grams the other day ... 250 AN OUNCE!!! (28 grams) ya rip off Ngā Bush pricks !!!
you mistake me, i don't very often pay for it.
so.... braai at your place then!
pritch
5th May 2014, 15:43
Yesterday I had a visitor, a professional currently involved with mental health clients; she was telling me that the psychiatrists are concerned about people suffering withdrawal when the legal highs aren't legal anymore. My response was to the effect that it isn't as if they had bad luck, or that they suffered an unforeseen act of God, they brought the problems on themselves by their own stupidity. Fuck 'em. Darwin rules.
I've got more sympathy for the beagles that might be used for testing through no fault of their own. The animal testing "industry", like the anti-tobacco, the anti-fat, and now the anti-sugar industries, rely largely on Government grants. Leeches the lot of them. Cut the funding, let them find something useful to do with their qualifications.
blue rider
5th May 2014, 19:46
i do avoid paknsave (i take my hemp kiti to binn inn. au cuz.) i do not farm all my own meat. i'd like to. i have/would/do kill meat every now and then.
and no, new guy, i don't ride my bike, not at all. sometimes i sit on it and make vroom vroom noises and pretend i'm a big boy, but then i got the internets, so i just jump on and mouth off, so everyone else knows i'm a big boy, too.
no protest. active indifference. your society's problem. good luck.
bet you couldn't so much as skin a rabbit. let alone cook it. fucking poofter.
rabbit in mustard with gnochi
rabbit in a red wine sauce with spaetzle
rabbit in butter milk sauce with bavarian dumplings
the one thing i really really miss in nz is a nice well fed rabbit (skinned, thank ee)
mmmh
blue rider
5th May 2014, 19:47
i suggest we just legalize weed, grow it professionally and tax the shit outta it.
no animal testing needed.....:)
rabbit in mustard with gnochi
rabbit in a red wine sauce with spaetzle
rabbit in butter milk sauce with bavarian dumplings
the one thing i really really miss in nz is a nice well fed rabbit (skinned, thank ee)
mmmh
come get some. nearly ran over 3 of the bastards tonight.
There certainly are testing methods that don't require animals. Computer modelling and advances in 'in vitro' testing have made animal testing unnecessary these days. These non-animal testing methods produce far more accurate results as well.
By giving access to testing on animals the government is simply making life easier for the manufacturers.
Nonsense on stilts.
Computer modeling can do a lot. But it cannot reliably predict allergy, teratogenesis or the efficacy of vaccines, to name only three out of very many checks. We still rely on (testing) Reduction and Refinement: Replacement (of all animal testing by other methods) is nowhere yet sufficient.
Katman
6th May 2014, 08:31
Nonsense on stilts.
Computer modeling can do a lot. But it cannot reliably predict allergy, teratogenesis or the efficacy of vaccines, to name only three out of very many checks. We still rely on (testing) Reduction and Refinement: Replacement (of all animal testing by other methods) is nowhere yet sufficient.
So you're another one who gets off on torturing animals.
Maybe you should fuck off with Ulsterkiwi.
SMOKEU
6th May 2014, 08:46
Why don't we just stop all this animal testing, legalize buds, roll up a fat one, and pass the blunt to the nigga on the left?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYpNpnkha5U
oldrider
6th May 2014, 09:58
Ahhhh South Park ... the real America! :rolleyes:
Banditbandit
6th May 2014, 10:01
you mistake me, i don't very often pay for it.
No - I assumed you were offering it for sale at 250 an ounce ...
so.... braai at your place then!
Naaa .. Why would I want a bunch of stoners coming round ?
Ulsterkiwi
6th May 2014, 16:50
So you're another one who gets off on torturing animals.
Maybe you should fuck off with Ulsterkiwi.
what an effective way to convince people of the 'rightness' of your viewpoint, tell anyone who does not agree with you to fuck off.
how do you make the connection between people making comments based on actual facts and them "getting off on torturing animals"? You have no clue what you are talking about, you have no clue WHO you are talking about and your only response is profanity.
I dont particularly care what words you use to be honest, I do find it depressing that you claim a stance on a topic that needs discussed and resolved but have such a lazy approach to progressing that stance.
Katman
6th May 2014, 16:53
I dont particularly care what words you use to be honest, I do find it depressing that you claim a stance on a topic that needs discussed and resolved but have such a lazy approach to progressing that stance.
It should come as no surprise to you that I have far more empathy for animals than I do for most human beings.
95% of humans misfortunes are due to their stupidity, vanity or greed.
95% of animals misfortunes are due to the perversity of humans.
I couldn't give a fuck whether I depress you.
Maybe it's time you started looking for a new job.
Ulsterkiwi
6th May 2014, 16:58
It should come as no surprise to you that I have far more empathy for animals than I do for most human beings.
95% of humans misfortunes are due to their stupidity, vanity or greed.
95% of animals misfortunes are due to the perversity of humans.
I couldn't give a fuck whether I depress you.
Maybe it's time you started looking for a new job.
I didnt say you depressed me, I said your attitude is depressing.
Why would I change my job? Are you assuming I conduct research using animals because I try to say such work can be misrepresented? Sorry, you are wrong again.
SMOKEU
6th May 2014, 17:44
Naaa .. Why would I want a bunch of stoners coming round ?
To have the epic sesh of course!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.