what is up with animal testing anyways, it's like they're trying to sya ok ya this u know this product is safe because we test it on an animal.

awwwww, i mad the baby mad...

sorry NWH but again your stupidity shines through...

where did i ever imply that animal testing does not exist? also where did i say that painful experiments do not happen? maybe it is you that should read posts before you reply..

you are the one in a fantasy world.. you have yet to post any facts that are correct, except that animal tests exist.. you have, time and time again, shown your lack of knowledge on the subject of animals, as well as other topics.. maybe you should do some research before you make yourself look even more ignorant...

what i posted is concerning what you were talking about.. see you are clueless.. what i posted goes for both medical and the testing you want to talk about.. those are required for ANY animal testing done in the US... commercial or medical...

as far as your "genetic clones" most new testing procedures are not as reliable(fact) as animal testing.. and not as developed.. also did you mis the part that stated they must see if there is another type of testing that would yield the same results as accurately as animal testing.. if there is that test must be used, per the PHS policy and the federal animal welfare act, instead of testing on live animals.. but i'm sure you already knew that right??

it is obvious that you don't know much about animal testing and are basing your info off of some AR literature you have read.. try opening your eyes and looking around in the real world sometime...

as i said before.... yes they do test on animals that cause harm.. but they are NOT in the amount you believe they are..most of the tests you described are very rarely performed anymore(fact).
yes they are still done but it is not as common place as you would like to believe...

are there some bad centers doing testing?
of course!!! just as there are bad parents or pet owners that abuse their animals, but you can't blame the many because of the few... that is somethingyou need to learn.. my guess is you also believe the AR BS like bears are commonly trained by burning their paws and that bull hooks were designed to beat elephants with... LMAO

You can't prove the Proctor& Gamble, and many other mega-companies don't test on animals, and that the test animals aren't subjected to painfull exparements, so why don't you get out of your ignorant fantasy world? Any why don't you read what it says in a post before replying with something that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I wasn't talking about medical reaserch testing, and I said that I was aware that there were several companies that didn't test on animals, but that there was a major company, Proctor & Gamble who does commit cruel tests on animals.

Animal testing is very true and real, just like the bunnies who were painfully blinded when shampoo was driped into their eyes and the dogs who were poisoned when they were forced to swallow chemicals. Animal testing is uneccisary, since there are things like genitic clones of tisues or whatever. Better yet, we don't need to put all of the chemicals and bi-products into our cleaners and soaps, since natural ones, which are free of chemically altered toxins, have been proven to work just as well, and are also better for the environment and the people using them.

If you think that it should be okay to kill, tourture, and injure millions of animals so that you can have shineyer hair due to more chemicals that were dripped into rabbits eyes and down dogs throats or more sprkeling floors due to a chemical-laden solvent that was forced into the nose and throat of chimps, you are being quite selfish.

Where do you get your facts? www. bull****forselfishpeoplewhocantadmitwhentheyarewrong .com ?

sorry NWH but i rely on real world info not invented or doctored info given out by animal rights groups.. the fact is that the overwhelming majority of animals in research are kept in humane conditions.. i hate to break it to you...

also, you are aware that over 95% of all animal testing does not involve pain, crippling conditions or death, right.. sorry but that is a FACT also..

true, there are tests that cripple or cause death or intense pain, but they are not the norm..

did you know that before these tests are conducted the scientist/doctor, the facility and or school, MUST appy to conduct these tests, and they must show PROOF that the test can not be conducted any other way while showing the same type of results..

as a matter of fact, the test must be reviewed and proven under each of these topics

Rationale and purpose of the proposed use of animals.
Justification of the species and number of animals requested. Whenever possible, the number of animals requested should be justified statistically.
Availability or appropriateness of the use of less-invasive procedures, other species, isolated organ preparation, cell or tissue culture, or computer simulation
Adequacy of training and experience of personnel in the procedures used.
Unusual housing and husbandry requirements.
Appropriate sedation, analgesia, and anesthesia.
Unnecessary duplication of experiments.
Conduct of multiple major operative procedures.
Criteria and process for timely intervention, removal of animals from a study, or euthanasia if painful or stressful outcomes are anticipated.
Postprocedure care.
Method of euthanasia or disposition of animal.
Safety of working environment for personnel

also these must be approved before the testingcan begin.

The species, strain, and breed of the animal and individual characteristics, such as sex, age, size, behavior, experiences, and health.
The ability of the animals to form social groups with conspecifics through sight, smell, and possibly contact, whether the animals are maintained singly or in groups.
The design and construction of housing.
The availability or suitability of enrichments

also the housing must pass all of these criteria

Allow for the normal physiologic and behavioral needs of the animals, including urination and defecation, maintenance of body temperature, normal movement and postural adjustments, and, where indicated, reproduction.
Allow conspecific social interaction and development of hierarchies within or between enclosures.
Make it possible for the animals to remain clean and dry consistent with the requirements of the species.
Allow adequate ventilation.
Allow the animals access to food and water and permit easy filling, refilling, changing, servicing, and cleaning of food and water utensils.
Provide a secure environment that does not allow escape of or accidental entrapment of animals or their appendages between opposing surfaces or by structural openings.
Are free of sharp edges or projections that could cause injury to the animals.
Allow observation of the animals with minimal disturbance of them.

this is just a taste of the federal guidelines that must be in place for any approval of any animal testing will be considered...

i will be more than happy to go on if you would like.. so my advice to you is to stop listening to all the AR lies and mistruths and come back to the real world with everyone else...

are animals put into painful testing?? yes
is it to the degree you would like for everyone to believe? NO!!!!!

in a perfect world there would be no animal testing, but this is not a perfect world..one day there will be alternatives that work as good as testing on ajnimals but those have not been proven as accurate for the most part at this time..

and while you type you BS think about the fact that everytime you take medicine, ANYmedicine, you are promoting animal testing.. because all of it is lot tested on animals..

so yes, you would be wrong again.

tigercats, why don't you try find some information on the topic before you say I'm wrong? Or is it just too hard for you to admit that someone else may be right? I just dare you to go to a P&G testing place (or many other testing places and companies) and tell me that they don't test on animals or that they treat thier test animals humanely. I know that many companies do not test on animals, but one of the biggest corparations in north america does, and they also are very cruel to the animals that they test on.

BTW, I totally agree w/ u ilurvemykurama

NWH

is there anything that you actually have some knowledge of?? because everything i have seen you post was total BS... including this...

"""That's like someone telling you you have to be tested on because you have a lower intelligent range."""

___The day that happened would make me laugh because of the way that sentence was put.

Animals were here first.That's like someone telling you you have to be tested on because you have a lower intelligent range.I use no items tested on animals.*shivers* what if YOU were that animal? what if that was YOU in that cage? what if that was you getting shampoo dripped in your eyes? I know you're not,but think of how that animal feels.Look at your dog/cat/bird/fish/whatever animal you have. What if that were it?

I hate animal testing. I really wish that companies wouldnt have drip shampoo into rabbits eyes and make dogs eat soap. Even when they aren't teting the animals, they usually (though not all, since some tests are done somewhat humanely) keep them in small, dirty, cold cages and don't give them medical care if they get injured or sick.

Proctor and Gamble is one of the worst companies that test on animals, and the worst thing about that is that their proucts are everywhere, from shampoos to cleaning products to toilet paper. I got some free samples of P&G stuff a while ago, and I'm not going to throw it away or waste it, so I used the shampoo. Its really nice, but you know what suks, it was tested on animals. So was my soap. I really wish that the companies would stop testing on animals, because by testing on animals, they are nont only hurting the animals, they are also loosing buisness and hurting their company.

There are a lot of companies that have found alternative to animal testing, it is possable, and I wish that all companies would follow thier lead and stop testing their cosmetic and houshold products on animals.

There are laws protecting humans from being tested on, so it's better than cloning people to test on. If we stopped using new products scientists and cosmetic product educators would start losing their jobs. Did you think we put lipstick on monkeys and hair-spray on bunnies for fun? You don't even want to know the kinds of things we do to animals in genetic and medical experiments.... *shiver*

?