At 18:37 13/03/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Axel,
>
>re: experiments on animals.
>
>I agree that natural healing is best, and that modern medications are
>rarely without undesirable side-effects, but consider:
>
> -most illnesses are caused by the fact that people have deviated from
>natural living. One cannot expect natural healing to be so powerful
>that it could cure any illness due to unnatural reasons.
well, we do not really know, consider for example the gerson institute.
they use some things that are not natural, but also a lot of high quality
vegetable juice, and people are reported to heal from very serious
life-threatening conditions. this is something i love about the
self-healing concept, that you never know what your body can do, how far it
can heal itself back. it is great and causes my admiration.
> -Even wild animals can die from infectious diseases.
i do not believe in infectious disesases. i do not believe that germs or
bacteria can do something to a human organism by themselves.
>In a nutshell, I see that you react strongly against animal
>experimentation,
of course, because i have human sensitivity, and most importantly because i
have read books that tell what sort of barbaric nazi experiments they do
with animals, and that was enough to convince me that they are WRONG. yes,
WRONG, there can not be a justification for extreme torture of creatures
that feel pain as much as you and me. no experiments.
but what if you were directly concerned? Like, if you
>had to choose between letting your mother die or give her a drug that
>would enhance her chances of survival (that is, more than a placebo
>would), but if that drug had required killing 5000 mice, what would
>you do? (In other words, do you think your mother's life is less, or
>more important than that of 5000 mice? Which option seems more
>criminal to you?)
people that are for animal experiments always come up with this childish
question. the scenario is SO unlikely, jean-louis. first, if the drug
already exists, i think it is ok to use it. but i have read about this and
am not deceived by the "heroic" experiments to "save" lives. the
experiments do not save lives, and moreover, we are talking about the myth
of torturing animals specially with drugs to supposedly find something that
is good and healing for human beings. there is NO proof that this happens
in the real world. i mean, please tell me of different experiments where
animals where subjected to drugs, in what amounts, for how long, what
results did they get, etc, and then also tell me precisely how this helped
human beings, what problems did they have, how on earth can you possibly
know that the drugs helped them, what other healing things did the people
do, etc. there is no way to prove that torturing animals help anybody at
all, but there is plenty of evidence for the contrary. i mean that because
of this superstition of animal experiments, the pharmaceutical industry has
a powerful aliby to sell all sorts of deadly poisons, and they are deemed
safe because of the crazy experiments. it is like a horror movie to me.
>Note: I think experimenting on (preferably small) animals is justified
>when it can save lives,
please tell me of specific cases that you know of where animal experiments
have saved lives, even one life. this is just a myth. animal experiments do
not save lives at all.
i know some will say you have to bring scientific and solid evidence for
you unsupported claims, but i can also say for example that if you say
animal experiments save lives, you have to bring the scientific proof for
this. just because it is common lore doesn´t make it true.
finally, i am just a guy, if you want to learn about this subject, read
"slaughter of the innocent", by hans ruesch. there are many anti animal
experiments books, but this is the "bible".
regards,
axel makaroff
|
