• Forum/Server Upgrade If you are reading this you have made it to the upgraded forum. Posts made on the old forum after 26th October 2023 have not been transfered. Everything else should be here. If you find any issues please let us know.

Disturbing and strange

very strange

Hi linnyloo :) I read about this "experiment in the Mail the other day :) it seemed so rediculous that i didn,t beleive it :shock: wonder what the results would look like :wink: would we get a strange mix of huumons with long loppy ears & fluffy tails who hop :oops: or large bunnies that walk upright :shock: talk eat hay :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: very strange

rabshan said:
Hi linnyloo :) I read about this "experiment in the Mail the other day :) it seemed so rediculous that i didn,t beleive it :shock: wonder what the results would look like :wink: would we get a strange mix of huumons with long loppy ears & fluffy tails who hop :oops: or large bunnies that walk upright :shock: talk eat hay :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same!

Why on earth do they need to do that? What will it prove, only other that they can do it? This is of no use to society or the environment, won't help anything, its just pointless and stupid!

Talking bunnies do sound cool though!
 
there is a point to this because if its succesful and they can make the stem cells they can be used to treat things like alzheimer's and other diseases involving the nervous system
 
ryanh72 said:
there is a point to this because if its succesful and they can make the stem cells they can be used to treat things like alzheimer's and other diseases involving the nervous system
Click to expand...

There are other ways of developing treatments, without the use of animals.

Do you think it's right to use them in this way? Would you let the scientists use your rabbit(s)?
 
Wabbit said:
ryanh72 said:
there is a point to this because if its succesful and they can make the stem cells they can be used to treat things like alzheimer's and other diseases involving the nervous system
Click to expand...

There are other ways of developing treatments, without the use of animals.

Do you think it's right to use them in this way? Would you let the scientists use your rabbit(s)?
Click to expand...

I don’t know enough about this particular case to voice an opinion. In general I’m against all animal testing etc BUT and it’s a big but…

Last year or the year before my grandma sent me an article out of a paper. It was about how scientists had managed to grow eye cells from squid cells. The idea was that in the future it may be possible to grow eyes or eye parts to help blind people or people with partial sight etc. Please don’t quote me on the above as I haven’t read the article for well over a year so cant remember the actual content.

I’m blind in one and have reasonable vision in the other and there is a chance I could loose the sight in my other eye.

What would you do if you had the chance to have your vision restored at the expense of animals?

I know what I would do. I would be a typical selfish human and take the chance. Your sight is an incredibly precious gift and it really frightens me to think I could loose it in the future but articles like the above give me hope.

I feel a total hypocrite saying that as it goes against everything I believe in.

Louise
 
The fact is it depends on how the animals are treated and what happens when the scientists have used them up as it were??

If they are loved and looked after then and the procedures casued no pain then it might be acceptable but what happens after all the eggs have been taken where does the bunny end up??

Does it ever get to see grass?? :?
 
linnyloo said:
The fact is it depends on how the animals are treated and what happens when the scientists have used them up as it were??

If they are loved and looked after then and the procedures casued no pain then it might be acceptable but what happens after all the eggs have been taken where does the bunny end up??

Does it ever get to see grass?? :?
Click to expand...

My guess is that you've never seen footage of laboratory animals, how they are kept and how the procedures are done :cry:

No, they never see grass - that is the last of their worries. They are kept in small metal cages and once they have been "used", they are destroyed.

Jenny
 
My guess is that you've never seen footage of laboratory animals, how they are kept and how the procedures are done :cry:

No, they never see grass - that is the last of their worries. They are kept in small metal cages and once they have been "used", they are destroyed.
Click to expand...

No i don't think i have seen much !! I try to avoid it as it makes me really upset :cry:
Poor little things, maybe they should stick with human subjects
 
Oh, yes? And how long will it be before we see the next headline in the papers telling us that the virus responsible for myxamatosis has mutated as a result of all this tampering with the gene pool - and the world now faces another lethal pandemic? Never mind avian flu!
Click to expand...

I thought that this was a good point.

They say that the DNA would be human, but the proteins would be rabbit. Therefore the cell would not entirely be human (as they say, it will be a hybrid) and may not create the accurate results that the scientists wish for.

As for the fact that the cells are destroyed to stop them getting into the gene pool- I thought that it was human DNA, so what does it matter? (Going against themselves here, I fear) and in any case, how do we have the right to create embryos and then decide whether they should be allowed to 'contaminate' human society? That would be like destroying all disabled people or all black people etc before they are born. Complete rubbish.
 
Wabbit said:
ryanh72 said:
there is a point to this because if its succesful and they can make the stem cells they can be used to treat things like alzheimer's and other diseases involving the nervous system
Click to expand...

There are other ways of developing treatments, without the use of animals.

Do you think it's right to use them in this way? Would you let the scientists use your rabbit(s)?
Click to expand...

Just out of interest Wabbit, I am assuming you have animals of your own, how do you treat your pets when they are ill :?: are there any treatments for animal illness's that have not been tested on animals and have been proven to work :?: I think this would help us all if there are because we can at least suggest such treatment when we have to visit out own vets :D

I take it you do not treat yourself either should an illness arise, have you taken measures to ensure you are not treated should you be rushed into hospital :?: if so how did you do it if you dont mind me asking :?:
 
Denny said:
Wabbit said:
ryanh72 said:
there is a point to this because if its succesful and they can make the stem cells they can be used to treat things like alzheimer's and other diseases involving the nervous system
Click to expand...

There are other ways of developing treatments, without the use of animals.

Do you think it's right to use them in this way? Would you let the scientists use your rabbit(s)?
Click to expand...

Just out of interest Wabbit, I am assuming you have animals of your own, how do you treat your pets when they are ill :?: are there any treatments for animal illness's that have not been tested on animals and have been proven to work :?: I think this would help us all if there are because we can at least suggest such treatment when we have to visit out own vets :D

I take it you do not treat yourself either should an illness arise, have you taken measures to ensure you are not treated should you be rushed into hospital :?: if so how did you do it if you dont mind me asking :?:
Click to expand...

At present, all new drugs have to be tested on animals BY LAW. This is ridiculous, considering that animal tests for human treatments are totally unreliable. There are many excellent scientists who are busy researching treatments without the use of animals. How sad that the law insists that these treatments are tested on animals before they can proceed to human trials. How many perfectly good drugs might have been discarded because they failed at this stage?

In all other aspects of our lives, we can choose whether or not to purchase animal tested products. The law has taken that choice away from us where drugs are concerned. This is what desperately needs to be changed.

When it comes to dabbling with the DNA of different species and mixing them up, that is just asking for trouble. It is unethical and potentially very dangerous. I find this type of "research" particulary disturbing.

No, I would not refuse life-saving treatments for my rabbits or for myself. We have no choice in the way drugs are developed, and we can only campaign for changes to be made (which I do wholeheatedly).

I do believe that things will change, although it might not be in my lifetime. It would probably take some huge scientific disaster to knock sense into the people who make these laws. The law would never change on the basis of animal welfare - it would only happen if human health was in danger, or drug companies' profits were affected. Sadly, drug companies are mainly driven by profit... :(

Jenny
 
I'm not sure where I stand on this .. but I know my instinct is that "no we shouldn't rely on animals to save human lives" for a start this world is seriously over populated already. But if I was in the situation of where someone I loved needed the support in a life or death situation, I'd be inclined to want modern medicine to evolve .. but not via bunnies or any other animal

::: confused ::: :roll: :oops: :cry:
 
I didn't care about what the drugs were tested on, when I nearly died! I do sometimes wonder how many died making the inhaler I so readily use. I used to use it about once a week, but now, thanks to my lovely bunnies, I'm on about 10 times a day!
 
ooh ,its such a difficult one as no-one surely wants animal testing however i don't understand the likes of parents who belong to weird cults or whatever who won't allow their kids who are terminally ill any form of treatment because of their believes. beliefs are a personal choice and as much as i object to animal testing given the choice of letting my son die for instance i know what i'd do,its up to him to make his choices when he's old enough to do so.how can you sit back n authorise their death???
its a prents job to protect their child whatever happens

when he was born nearly 5yrs ago, i wanted to donate the blood from his umbilical cord/placenta to the stem cell campaign,think it was that as i'd read about the benefits odf wht they could do with it however i was told that the hospital he was born in didn't have the scheme for want f a better word so no use was made of it although it could've been beneficial and has been proven to be so.Maybe things are different now but its obviously preferred to keep on with the drugs and whilst they benefit many diseases
surely things like this can only help in addition.
 
This is a tough one and there is no right or wrong, just beliefs and opinions.

I am an animal lover, always have been and always will be. That's the way I brought up. I've had pet fish, birds, mice, hamsters, rats, GP's and now bunsters, as well as dogs all my life.

I don't agree with testing. I really don't and some of the things I've seen in documentaries about it are devastating.

HOWEVER, my grandma (my mum's mum) died 3 years ago from Alzheimer's. She had it for 13 odd years and spent the last two or three years of her life as a vegetable.
I don't really remember her to be honest, because I didn't see her after about the age of 9 as she went from nursing home, to mental home, etc and my mum didn't want me to see her like that. As I got older I chose not to see her because I wanted to remember her how she used to be: a dignified, caring woman who worked with the red cross doing various charity work all the time and who completely doted on her two dogs and always fed the foxes at the bottom of her garden.

But I did see what it did to my mum, who was an only child and visited her mum for hours each week on her own whilst my dad was at work and her dad couldn't be bothered, having a new woman in his life, and in fact, in the family home with my grandma's dogs. And even now she'll sit in tears.

And I know for a fact, that she'd give anything to have her mum back and would have readily tried any medication regardless of how many animals would have suffered if it meant she'd have her mum back... and I'm sorry, but if history repeated itself and the same happened to my mum (heaven forbid) I wouldn't care what it took, as long as they could keep my mum on earth. Fluffy bunsters or no fluffy bunsters, I'd try it.
 
*Red* said:
This is a tough one and there is no right or wrong, just beliefs and opinions.

I am an animal lover, always have been and always will be. That's the way I brought up. I've had pet fish, birds, mice, hamsters, rats, GP's and now bunsters, as well as dogs all my life.

I don't agree with testing. I really don't and some of the things I've seen in documentaries about it are devastating.

HOWEVER, my grandma (my mum's mum) died 3 years ago from Alzheimer's. She had it for 13 odd years and spent the last two or three years of her life as a vegetable.
I don't really remember her to be honest, because I didn't see her after about the age of 9 as she went from nursing home, to mental home, etc and my mum didn't want me to see her like that. As I got older I chose not to see her because I wanted to remember her how she used to be: a dignified, caring woman who worked with the red cross doing various charity work all the time and who completely doted on her two dogs and always fed the foxes at the bottom of her garden.

But I did see what it did to my mum, who was an only child and visited her mum for hours each week on her own whilst my dad was at work and her dad couldn't be bothered, having a new woman in his life, and in fact, in the family home with my grandma's dogs. And even now she'll sit in tears.

And I know for a fact, that she'd give anything to have her mum back and would have readily tried any medication regardless of how many animals would have suffered if it meant she'd have her mum back... and I'm sorry, but if history repeated itself and the same happened to my mum (heaven forbid) I wouldn't care what it took, as long as they could keep my mum on earth. Fluffy bunsters or no fluffy bunsters, I'd try it.
Click to expand...

The fact is that animal testing is unreliable, and the law needs to be changed to reflect this.

There is some fantastic research being carried out on diseases of the brain. The scientists are using donated brain tissue from people who have died of Alzheimers and other similar conditions. Most relatives are more than happy to donate the tissue of their loved ones, in order to help other sufferers in the future.

Bearing in mind that non-human animals do not suffer from Alzheimers, it seems crazy (as well as unethical) to use them for research!

There is no need for us to choose between the lives of our families and the lives of millions of animals. As well as the ethical issues, vivisection is downright dangerous to human health.

Jenny
 
Think of the predecent- all the people in the past who cut up monkeys and things and for ages we thought that we had that cerebral covering (can't remember what it's called) around our brains like monkeys, but we don't. As Wabbit says, it's unreliable. Like the fact that AIDS doesn't kill monkeys like it does us. These diseases that people want to find cures for, what works on animals may not work on humans. They may even kill humans. How many humans do you want to die before a cure is found?
 
As an aside, isn't the vaccine for VHD produced by infecting rabbits then making suspensions from the liver tissue? I'm pretty sure it used to be, don't know if it still is. I'll try and look that one up.

I seem to remember reading a few years ago that it is pretty much impossible to grow the virus in vitro so that it can be inactivated to form the vaccine. It has to be grown in utero. I'll try and look that one up. Anyone else know?
 
Yeah I found this http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00117.htm
Seems people are working on other forms of vaccination, "However, at the present time, recombinant vaccines are not yet registered and commercially available."

Don't read this article if you are too sensitive, it's not got much in the way of grizzly detail though.

I'll try and find out how alternative vaccines are coming along, as this page was last updated in summer 2004.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Craig 1965
Bertie - a stasis story....pt 1
Replies
16
Views
4K
Craig 1965
Craig 1965
ceremonie
Urgent :( - Hesitant to separate... (neutered brothers fighting)
Replies
9
Views
1K
ceremonie
ceremonie
ceremonie
Litter box setup with fleece?
Replies
10
Views
2K
ceremonie
ceremonie
Back
Top