Install Theme

Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

animals nature veganism

Welcome to animals, nature, veganism. We are raised in a society where animal captivity, exploitation and cruelty are normalized to the point where most do not question the morality or injustice of it all.

Through no fault of our own, we are (often) raised contributing to animal injustice and to believe that it is ‘normal’ to participate in acts such as consuming animal products or visiting captive wildlife - which should not to be confused with ‘common’, as it is by percentage ‘common’ to participate in anti-animal acts, but it is by no means normal.

In the words of Optimus Prime, freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

Note: every post I make is always categorised to either 'animals', 'nature' or 'veganism'. Feel free to search the tags for your topic of interest.

http://youtu.be/0ANN1xfnGK0

Oct 11 '14

(Source: slavearc)

Oct 11 '14
fernandavegana:

NUTS AND SEEDS!

fernandavegana:

NUTS AND SEEDS!

Oct 5 '14

veganshithead:

Stop acting like white, rich kids came up with veganism.

Stop erasing the history of PoC cultures that had—and still have—major animal rights movements, even if they didn’t use those terms to describe it.

Stop magically forgetting about Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc. in order to invalidate modern vegans because you’re mad that they pointed out the harm inherent in killing unnecessarily.

Stop it right now.

(Source: theghoulingclass)

Sep 30 '14
yummyvegan:

Why is raising animals for food so inefficient?

yummyvegan:

Why is raising animals for food so inefficient?

Sep 30 '14

fightingforanimals:

revolucionvegana:

curchofgosh:

I didn’t claw my way to the top of the food chain to to go vegan.

Is this how you clawed your way to the top of the food chain?

image

image

image

image

True predator.

Trophic-levels-6-sharpened

We’re closer to anchovies and cows than fuckin’ top predators. You guys need to stop with this retired old shite.

Sep 30 '14

aquazazz:

the-shark-blog:

Source

Truth. Spread it.

S.O.S.  (Save Our Sharks!)

Sep 24 '14

nubbsgalore:

male mouthbrooding jawfish — such as the mottled (seen in the fourth photo with spikes on the side of its head from a fireworm attack), the yellowhead, the banded, and the cardinalfish seen here —  use their mouths to protect their eggs until the fry hatch. 

mouthbrooding fish are able to produce smaller numbers of offspring with a higher chance of survival than species that offer no broodcare. the males, however, are not able to eat during this period of incubation (which can last anywhere from one to three weeks), but will open their mouths, spitting the eggs out and then sucking them back in to keep them clean and aerated. 

photos by (click pic) nicolas terryshigeru harazaki, steven kovacs, keri wilk, michael patrick oneilll and marcello di francesco 

Sep 22 '14

marine-science:

Methods of coral restoration are being applied in many parts of the world, including Florida, Mozambique and the Caribbean islands. Fast growing, branching species are being reared by conservationists and scientists and used for “reef seeding” projects. 

"It sounds quite novel, but in fact its a science thats been around for about 30 years. One of the reasons why I’m drawn to it is because its a very active way to get people physically involved in protecting the ocean."

Photo credits: top, middle, second from bottom, bottom

Sep 22 '14
Sep 22 '14
maghrabiyya:

moonstonebeginning:

soulpunx20xx:

moonstonebeginning:

moonstonebeginning:

A great addition to your garden or back yard. - Bee watering station. 
Bees need water just like we do but often times drown in open water. To make a bee watering station you can either do what is shown in the photo above and fill the bowl of a dog/cat watering jug with stones or you can fill a small dish with marbles and add water to that. That way the bees have something to land on!

First post to get this many notes, and I’m so glad it’s this one. ^_^

No fuck bees kill them all

Kill all bees huh? Bees are responsible for pollinating around 80% of agriculture. Bees die, you die. Do research and get over your fears.

bees are so important save the bees

maghrabiyya:

moonstonebeginning:

soulpunx20xx:

moonstonebeginning:

moonstonebeginning:

A great addition to your garden or back yard. - Bee watering station. 

Bees need water just like we do but often times drown in open water. To make a bee watering station you can either do what is shown in the photo above and fill the bowl of a dog/cat watering jug with stones or you can fill a small dish with marbles and add water to that. That way the bees have something to land on!

First post to get this many notes, and I’m so glad it’s this one. ^_^

No fuck bees kill them all

Kill all bees huh? Bees are responsible for pollinating around 80% of agriculture. Bees die, you die. Do research and get over your fears.

bees are so important save the bees

Sep 22 '14
vegan-animallover:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:


give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement
1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemiological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals. 6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans. 7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security. 8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke. 9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims. 10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.11.Combined heart lung transplants were also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function. 14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics. 16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. 17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths. 18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans. 
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting. 21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26] 27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species.” 29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this. 38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant. 39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson’s disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result. 48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSEHUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES
Americans for Medical AdvancementREFERENCES:[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 [2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 [3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 [4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 [5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 [6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 [7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 [8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 [9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 [10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 [11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 [12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 [13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 [14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 [15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 [16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 [17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 [18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 [19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 [20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 [21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 [22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 [23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 [24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 [25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 [26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 [27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 [28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 [29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 [30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: [31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 [32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 [33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 [34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 [35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 [36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 [37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 [38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 [39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 [40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) [41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 [43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 [44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 [46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 [47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American Antivivisection Society [48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 [49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 [50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 [51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 [52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 [53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 [54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 [55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 [57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 [58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of [59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 [60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 [61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press [62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 [63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century. Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing. Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical. People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”
What You Can Do
Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.
REFERENCES
Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101
Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

fuck animal testing. Visit leapingbunny.org for cruelty free and vegan products.

vegan-animallover:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS 
From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement


1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 

2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemiological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]

5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals. 

6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans. 

7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security. 

8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke. 

9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims. 

10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

11.Combined heart lung transplants were also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the 
operation.[14]

12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function. 

14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 

15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics. 

16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. 

17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths. 

18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans. 

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting. 

21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22]
[23][24][25][26] 

27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species.” 

29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]

32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]

37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this. 

38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant. 

39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson’s disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”

46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result. 

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. 

Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. 

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES

Americans for Medical Advancement

REFERENCES:

[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 
[2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 
[3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 
[4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 
[5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 
[6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 
[7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 
[8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 
[9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 
[10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 
[11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 
[12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 
[13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 
[14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 
[15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 
[16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 
[17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 
[18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 
[19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 
[20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, 
vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 
[21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 
[22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 
[23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 
[24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 
[25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 
[26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 
[27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 
[28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 
[29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 
[30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: 
[31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 
[32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 
[33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 
[34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 
[35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 
[36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 
[37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 
[38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 
[39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 
[40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) 
[41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 
[43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 
[44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 
[46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 
[47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American 
Antivivisection Society 
[48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 
[49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 
[50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 
[51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 
[52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 
[53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 
[54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 
[55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 
[57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 
[58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of 
[59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 
[60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 
[61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press 
[62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 
[63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century.

Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.

Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing.

Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical.

People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:

  1. Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
  2. According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
  3. Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
  4. 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
  5. The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
  6. A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
  7. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
  8. Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
  9. The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
  10. Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
  11. 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
  12. Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
  13. Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
  14. Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
  15. Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
  16. In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
  17. Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
  18. In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
  19. In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
  20. A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
  21. According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
  22. 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
  23. 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
  24. 78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
  25. Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
  26. One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
  27. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
  28. The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
  29. 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
  30. The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”

What You Can Do

  • Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
  • Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
  • Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
  • Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
  • Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.

REFERENCES

  • Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
  • ‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
  • Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
  • Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
  • Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
  • GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
  • F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
  • R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
  • D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
  • EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
  • AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
  • Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
  • Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
  • Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
  • Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
  • Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
  • Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
  • Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
  • Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
  • Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
  • K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
  • Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
  • Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
  • Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
  • Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
  • http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
  • Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
  • Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101

Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

fuck animal testing. Visit leapingbunny.org for cruelty free and vegan products.

Sep 22 '14

mindblowingscience:

This snake’s venom makes you bleed from every orifice until you die

Hey so snakes that inject venom into the bloodstream are pretty bad, how about a snake that injects venom into your bloodstream AND makes you bleed out from every orifice? Sound good?

The boomslang (Dispholidus typus) is a venomous tree snake native to Sub-Saharan Africa. Blunt-faced and pretty, with relatively enormous eyes and a bright, light green colour in males and brown in females, the boomslang spends its days up in the trees, hunting for lizards, frogs, chameleons, mice and birds. It’s a super shy and non-aggressive species – if it comes across anything it can’t swallow, it’ll be out of there so fast, the thing it couldn’t swallow probably won’t have even noticed it was there. It’s also basically the cat of the snake world, often moving into the enclosed nests of nearby birds so it can curl up and hibernate in peace during the winter months. Quit whinging birds, you got flight, you can’t complain about anything ever.

On top of their non-aggressive tendencies, the way boomslangs are built means you have to be extremely, extremely unlucky to be bitten by one. Known as ‘rear-fanged’ snakes, their fangs are positioned way back in their mouths behind several other teeth, which means to inject someone with venom, they have to open their mouths really wide – up to 170 degrees –  so they can wrap them around the flesh and stab. There have so far been less than 10 recorded deaths from boomslang bites around the world.

Because they’re so anatomically unsuited to biting people, boomslangs were assumed to be harmless up until the late 1950s. A fantastic article by Paul Donovan for Reptiles Magazine describes how on the 26th of September 1957, eminent herpetologist, Karl P. Schmidt from Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo, died from a boomslang bite. It was the first such recorded death, and it left his peers shocked. Schmidt had received a bite from a single fang in his thumb as he opened a sack containing a young boomslang that had spent its life in captivity, and he thought nothing of it. Not only did the scientific community think this species posed no threat – very few rear-fanged snakes in the family Colubridae are dangerous to humans – but the way its venom works means that the symptoms don’t kick in until several hours after the bite. Schmidt recorded every symptom as it arrived. Around 24 hours after his bite, Schmidt was found dead in his home from respiratory arrest and severe brain haemorrhaging.

An entry from the 3 October 1957 edition of the Sarasota Journal recounts how the local paper reported Schmidt’s passing:

“The [Chicago] Tribune said the diary covered a 15-hour period from the time he boarded a suburban train on the day he was bitten until the next morning. Associates said he believed he had recovered and was planning to return to work. The last entry was made after breakfast Sept 26. Associates said Dr Schmidt apparently made no further entries because he was up and around later in the morning and had notified the museum he would be back at work the next day. Unattended by a physician, he went into a coma at 2pm.”

Donovan, himself a renowned snake expert, describes the impact of Schmidt’s death on the herpetological community, saying, “Schmidt’s death changed our perception of the boomslang, and subsequent analysis of its venom found it to be as toxic, if not more toxic, than many front-fanged snakes. Today, the boomslang ranks as one of Africa’s most venomous snakes.”

While the venom causes several symptoms such as headache, nausea, and sleepiness, the real worry is its anti-coagulating properties. The venom is a hemotoxin, which means it destroys red blood cells, loosens blood clotting, and causes organ and tissue degeneration. Victims suffer extensive muscle and brain haemorrhaging, and on top of that, blood will start seeping out of every possible exit, including the gums and nostrils, and even the tiniest of cuts. Blood will also start passing through the body via the victim’s stools, urine, saliva, and vomit until they die. “Death is attributed to progressive internal bleeding, and it can be a slow and lingering process, taking anywhere from three to five days,” says Donovan at Reptiles Magazine. “Interestingly, many bite victims report “seeing with a yellow tinge,” which may be due to bleeding inside the eyes.”

The fact that the venom is relatively slow to act in humans means that bite victims have some time to get access to the anti-venom and be saved, but it also puts those who don’t know any better at serious risk. During those few crucial hours of grace, they assume there’s nothing to fear.

Sep 22 '14
vegan-animallover:

rawr0609:

crazylittleredhead:

fightingforanimals:

fear-the-fluff:

vegvoice:

The best way to get over your cheese addiction, is to watch a mother cow scream for days as her newborn child is ripped away from her; so that you can have her milk.

HOLD THE PHONE
IMA STOP YOU RIGHT THERE
CHECK YOUR FACTS
Hi there, I’ve worked on a dairy farm. Lemme just correct you.
1. Uhm the cows don’t scream for days, maybe like for an hour at the most but they get over it as soon as you feed them. Seriously. Baby, forgotten.
2. The calves still receive their mother’s milk. In fact, they receive MORE milk than they’d normally be getting, since farmers have figured out the exact amount of colostrum a calf needs to grow up healthy, and they can give this to the baby, whereas with natural feeding the calves often get too little.
3. They receive colostrum from the healthiest cows to insure that their immune system is bolstered enough. Infections and disease are INCREDIBLY common in dairy cows allowed to suckle. Farms even freeze colostrum from the healthiest mothers, just to insure that all calves will be able to have a sufficient quality of healthy, infection-free mother’s milk.
4. The calves are also removed from their mothers due to the high calf mortality rate when left with their mothers. Cows, ESPECIALLY first-time mothers, have the tendency to not care properly for their babies. We’ve had calves with broken legs because their mother stepped on them after birthing (and yes, they have adequate space, they’re just clumsy animals) A lot of new mothers will abandon the calf, or not care for it properly, or not allow it to nurse. Other cows may push around the calves. It’s much safer and healthier for both mother AND child if the calves are removed and placed in a safer area.
5. Calves get EXCELLENT care. They are bottle-fed mother’s milk, placed in roomy, well-bedded box stalls, blanketed, cleaned, vetted. The farm kind of obviously needs them as healthy as possible?
6. Most farms nowadays don’t even completely “take them away”. The farm I worked on would allow the cows to run with their calves for most of the time. They were fed separately for the health reasons listed above, and the cows would be brought in to be milked twice a day, and separated at night so no accidental nighttime injuries happened in the box stalls. They are weaned very gradually, and spend most of the time with their mothers, contrary to what PETA would have you believe.
THIS HAS BEEN A PSA ON BEHALF OF DAIRY FARMERS THANK U FOR TUNING IN REMEMBER TO CHECK UR FACTS NEXT TIME PLEASE

It’s really embarassing when people believe that because they’ve seen *one or two* farms, they automatically know how every operation works and every single factory farm or large-scale (or even local) dairy runs.
Cows have been known to scream at all hours of the day and night. This is not propaganda, this is a common occurance that has even made the news.
Calves are often removed shortly after birth. While this may be argued that it prevents the mother and calf from being as stressed as they would be if removed later, it does not guarantee he will be fed his milk, even if lucky enough to receive the vital colostrum. It is laughable that you think an industry working to generate a profit would give MORE milk to an unwanted (if male) calf who as of yet (if female) is not making the business any money. Again, giving calves colostrum ensures they have a better chance of survival in what is likely to be a stressful and insanitary environment. It does not necessarily mean they will continue to be fed milk when cheaper alternatives exist. Your bullshit about calves not receiving enough milk from their own mothers is unfounded and illogical, and not worth addressing.
Calves when turned out into large enclosures do just fine raising their young. Explain how calves born and raised in sanctuaries in spacious, well-bedded and quiet enclosures do absolutely fine, even with their first-time mothers.
It’s not difficult to imagine why such large, stressed animals would injure their young when you consider the conditions they usually give birth in…


Gee, you really believe every farm treats calves like yours did? Especially those who supply dairy products to large corporations, such as Burger King, DiGiorno Pizza and Costco? For someone who claims to know everything about the industry, you sure are ignorant and close-minded.
Wow, the farm you worked on sure sounds great doesn’t it? Well, unless the farm you worked on supplies dairy to every single outlet and fast food chain in America or wherever you’re from, that counts for shit. You cannot base your single fucking experience and say that the overwhelming evidence of abusive conditions in the dairy industry is ‘fake’ or ‘overexaggerated’. 
You have not listed a single source except for this ‘farm’ you worked on. I suggest if you want to start accusing people of not listing all the facts, you’d best take your head out your arse for more than a few minutes and realise the entire world doesn’t revolve around your one happy little experience of sunshine and ‘happy cows’. 

Not to mention no matter how well the calves are taken care of male calves are turned into veal or sold to become beef steers, female calves will become dairy cows themselves. There’s nothing good or ethical about this whole process.

Yep, and dairy cows live a life of constant pregnancy, lactation until they are killed a little over 10 years too young

Go vegan.

vegan-animallover:

rawr0609:

crazylittleredhead:

fightingforanimals:

fear-the-fluff:

vegvoice:

The best way to get over your cheese addiction, is to watch a mother cow scream for days as her newborn child is ripped away from her; so that you can have her milk.

HOLD THE PHONE

IMA STOP YOU RIGHT THERE

CHECK YOUR FACTS

Hi there, I’ve worked on a dairy farm. Lemme just correct you.

1. Uhm the cows don’t scream for days, maybe like for an hour at the most but they get over it as soon as you feed them. Seriously. Baby, forgotten.

2. The calves still receive their mother’s milk. In fact, they receive MORE milk than they’d normally be getting, since farmers have figured out the exact amount of colostrum a calf needs to grow up healthy, and they can give this to the baby, whereas with natural feeding the calves often get too little.

3. They receive colostrum from the healthiest cows to insure that their immune system is bolstered enough. Infections and disease are INCREDIBLY common in dairy cows allowed to suckle. Farms even freeze colostrum from the healthiest mothers, just to insure that all calves will be able to have a sufficient quality of healthy, infection-free mother’s milk.

4. The calves are also removed from their mothers due to the high calf mortality rate when left with their mothers. Cows, ESPECIALLY first-time mothers, have the tendency to not care properly for their babies. We’ve had calves with broken legs because their mother stepped on them after birthing (and yes, they have adequate space, they’re just clumsy animals) A lot of new mothers will abandon the calf, or not care for it properly, or not allow it to nurse. Other cows may push around the calves. It’s much safer and healthier for both mother AND child if the calves are removed and placed in a safer area.

5. Calves get EXCELLENT care. They are bottle-fed mother’s milk, placed in roomy, well-bedded box stalls, blanketed, cleaned, vetted. The farm kind of obviously needs them as healthy as possible?

6. Most farms nowadays don’t even completely “take them away”. The farm I worked on would allow the cows to run with their calves for most of the time. They were fed separately for the health reasons listed above, and the cows would be brought in to be milked twice a day, and separated at night so no accidental nighttime injuries happened in the box stalls. They are weaned very gradually, and spend most of the time with their mothers, contrary to what PETA would have you believe.

THIS HAS BEEN A PSA ON BEHALF OF DAIRY FARMERS THANK U FOR TUNING IN REMEMBER TO CHECK UR FACTS NEXT TIME PLEASE

It’s really embarassing when people believe that because they’ve seen *one or two* farms, they automatically know how every operation works and every single factory farm or large-scale (or even local) dairy runs.

Cows have been known to scream at all hours of the day and night. This is not propaganda, this is a common occurance that has even made the news.

Calves are often removed shortly after birth. While this may be argued that it prevents the mother and calf from being as stressed as they would be if removed later, it does not guarantee he will be fed his milk, even if lucky enough to receive the vital colostrum. It is laughable that you think an industry working to generate a profit would give MORE milk to an unwanted (if male) calf who as of yet (if female) is not making the business any money. Again, giving calves colostrum ensures they have a better chance of survival in what is likely to be a stressful and insanitary environment. It does not necessarily mean they will continue to be fed milk when cheaper alternatives exist. Your bullshit about calves not receiving enough milk from their own mothers is unfounded and illogical, and not worth addressing.

Calves when turned out into large enclosures do just fine raising their young. Explain how calves born and raised in sanctuaries in spacious, well-bedded and quiet enclosures do absolutely fine, even with their first-time mothers.

It’s not difficult to imagine why such large, stressed animals would injure their young when you consider the conditions they usually give birth in…

image

image

Gee, you really believe every farm treats calves like yours did? Especially those who supply dairy products to large corporations, such as Burger King, DiGiorno Pizza and Costco? For someone who claims to know everything about the industry, you sure are ignorant and close-minded.

Wow, the farm you worked on sure sounds great doesn’t it? Well, unless the farm you worked on supplies dairy to every single outlet and fast food chain in America or wherever you’re from, that counts for shit. You cannot base your single fucking experience and say that the overwhelming evidence of abusive conditions in the dairy industry is ‘fake’ or ‘overexaggerated’. 

You have not listed a single source except for this ‘farm’ you worked on. I suggest if you want to start accusing people of not listing all the facts, you’d best take your head out your arse for more than a few minutes and realise the entire world doesn’t revolve around your one happy little experience of sunshine and ‘happy cows’. 

Not to mention no matter how well the calves are taken care of male calves are turned into veal or sold to become beef steers, female calves will become dairy cows themselves. There’s nothing good or ethical about this whole process.

Yep, and dairy cows live a life of constant pregnancy, lactation until they are killed a little over 10 years too young

Go vegan.

Sep 22 '14
Sep 22 '14

About Sumatrian Tigers (post from january 2014)

Source: WWF’s “Don’t Flush Tiger Forests” campaign

"WWF found that two brands sold in the United States—Paseo and Livi—are made with paper from Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), which is responsible for more forest destruction in Sumatra than any other single company. Paseo is a retail brand of toilet paper, paper towels, napkins and facial tissue, and it is now the fastest growing brand of toilet paper in the United States, according to its marketer. Paseo and a sister brand, Livi, are also sold as “away-from-home” products to hotels, restaurants and other places with public facilities."

Basically those two companies are responsible for part of the deforestation involved in the current decline of the Sumatrian Tiger species. This information probably deserves a boycott of Paseo and Livi, a viral info on social networks, or something like that.