Considerable evidence demonstrates that animal experimentation is inefficient, unreliable and unsafe. It is also unnecessary because newly developed methodologies are more valid and less expensive than animal studies. An increasing number of doctors and scientists agree that the methodology of today's biomedical research is invalid and counterproductive. Many times the unreliability of animal research has produced highly unpredicted and unwanted results. The danger and varying reliability of animal experimentation stems from the fact that vivisection (live animal experimentation) research entails gathering data on animals with artificially induced versions of human diseases in place of information on humans with the actual diseases. This is nearly useless because not only is every species bio-mechanically and bio-chemically different but laboratory results are further skewed by the stressful and unnaturally living environments of the test subjects. In addition the researchers involved in vivisection are often said to overshadow its negative aspects. Although vivisection supporters claim that it has played a crucial role in virtually all medical advances. Several medical historians argue that key discoveries in such areas as heart disease, cancer, immunology, and anesthesia, were in fact achieved through clinical research, observation of patients, and human autopsy. In addition in vitro cell and tissue cultures have proven to be powerful investigative tools. .
Animal Research has proven on many accounts to be highly unsafe. It is dangerous because drugs tested safe and effective on animals often prove not to be so during human guinea pig testing. The drug Milrinone increased the survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure, but there was a 30% increase in the mortality rate of humans taking the drug. A drug, which appeared safe in animal tests, Fialuridine, caused liver failure in 7 of 15 humans taking the drug; five died and two required liver transplants.
Vivisection is the act of experimenting on animals. ... Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic, said of vivisection,"It should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection. ... I believe vivisection is wrong because it is very cruel to the animals, experts say it is inaccurate, and there are humane alternatives. First, vivisection is very cruel and painful for the animals. ...
Vivisection is both immoral and unjustifiable - Discus I am strongly against vivisection. ... Supporters of vivisection argue that animals are anaesthetised during procedures. ... The journalist makes her point that vivisection is morally justifiable by saying "Sorry, I think a dying people are more important than dumb animals". ... No leaflet has been able to re-assure me that vivisection is the only way of researching further medicines and procedures that will benefit mankind. I would ask people who are for animal testing- would you offer your family pet for vivisection? ...
Maybe they would if they were presented with the facts about vivisection and the meat industry. ... Let's start with the large amount of animals Vivisection effects. ... The single largest financier and advocate of vivisection would have to be The National Institutes of Health(NIH). ... Every time we pay our taxes we are supporting Vivisection. ... The truth is that Vivisection wastes money and lives that could otherwise be spared. ...
Yet, we, the public have been led to believe that vivisection, more commonly known as animal testing and dissection, is responsible for "mericle cures" and "medical breakthroughs." Actually vivisection has not cured a single human. ... Although people think that vivisection comes up with cures, disease incidence is actually increasing. ... Even if vivisection worked, which it doesn't, it kills animals and is like torture for them. ...
For decades it has been believed that experimentation through vivisection has provided enormous benefits for human beings. ... Centuries later, Charles Mayo, founder of the highly regarded Mayo Clinic said, "I abhor vivisection. ... Not only are these tests more humane than vivisection, but they are also more accurate, usually faster, and less expensive. ... These are just a few of the alternative methods available today, and they are proving to be more beneficial to mankind than the "traditional" methods of vivisection, not to mention the obvious benefits to the innocent victims of vivisectio...
INTRODUCTION: Voices demanding the rights of animals against vivisection have been louder then ever over the past thirty years. ... Animal rights against vivisection have been expressed in a serious of protest and riots, which have fallen short of their purpose. Although Vivisection has been taking place since the seventeenth century nothing has happened to stop the inequitable situation. ... Alternatives to Animal Testing: Banning vivisection is a topic often debated. ... Vivisection is a cruel act that is costing tax payers hundreds of dollars to help the suffering of innocent...
Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Vivisection is the medical term for the practice of experimenting on animals. ... More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method still in use: animal vivisection. ... Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Vivisection is the medical term for the practice of experimenting on animals. ...
Animal testing or vivisection, as it is commonly called, promises to cure ills through animal experimentation. ... Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Tragic Consequences More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method still in use: animal vivisection. ...
Vivisection, the practice of experimenting on animals, began because of religious prohibitions against the dissection of human corpses. When religious leaders finally lifted these prohibitions, it was too late- vivisection was already entrenched in medical and educational institutions. ... Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic explains, "I abhor vivisection. ... I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. ...
