Monday 31 October 2011

Animals on drugs.

I don't use medicines. I might take an aspirin if I'm in severe pain but it has to be incapacitating. Years ago we were told that a daily aspirin would prevent heart attacks, then we were told ooooh no, aspirin rots your stomach, now it seems it's a cure for cancer. If the people selling it don't know what it does then how can I trust it?

Drugs are tested on animals. Would you rather they were tested on you? Even those that pass animal testing sometimes have awful effects on humans. Animals don't always react the same way as humans to any given chemical. You can stuff down a one-pound slab of chocolate and you might feel full and a bit queasy. That's enough chocolate to kill a Rottweiler. Some birds can eat berries that are toxic to humans. Animal testing isn't a guarantee of safety but other than using criminals (which I'd approve of simply because it would be far more effective than an ASBO as a deterrent) animals are all that's available.

So it's a fact that drugs are tested on animals. There are very strict rules governing animal experiments. Very strict indeed. The UK has not allowed any cosmetic testing on animals for a long time. Animals are not tormented - anyone doing so would face prosecution. Every drug on sale has been tested on animals. Even nicotine patches, which failed to make those beagles quit too.

A celebrity medic, Dr. Robert Winston, wants to have labels on all drug bottles stating that the drugs are safe because they have been tested on animals. Thalidomide was tested on animals, and that turned out... oh.

“Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field. We need to say very clearly it would be unthinkable to take any drug which has not been tested on an intact ­animal. In fact, there is a case for having legislation to make it clear that a particular drug has only been possible for human consumption because of animal testing."
Legislation, Dr. W? Why does it need legislation? If it's a good idea, just do it. You don't need to force companies to do it.

He said every university had an animal ­testing laboratory but their silence made them appear as though they had “something to be ashamed of”.

I suspect their silence has more to do with their strange preference for not being attacked by gibbering maniacs.Of which we have rather more than our share in this country. Folk like the commenter below the story -

What a vile and disgusting thought, Robert Winston if you put this on drugs people will simply not use them . Clearly your a evil man who enjoys inflicting pain on animals that cannot fight back and now you want to brag about it on medicine bottle. I hope i meet you one day so i can replay the compliment.

So, markymarksurrey is quite happy to use pills that don't say they've been tested on animals even though they have been. They all have been. Surely it's the user's right to know this? Then they can decide whether the pills are worth the knowledge of how those pills came to be.

My own avoidance of medication has nothing to do with this. I just don't trust Pharmers.

For everyone else, it seems only fair that they know how their drugs came to market. Animals tried them first. If that knowledge hurts your conscience, don't take the drugs.

You can't decide unless you know, and pretending you don't know just to ease your conscience is dishonest..

Stick those warning labels on medicines. With pictorial representations of the side effects too.

Smokers and drinkers have them, so let's extend this great idea to medicine.


View from the Solent said...

Hmm. Pictures of fluffy kittens with pipes in them on medicine bottles. How much is Big Voodoo Medicine paying you?

Xopher said...

people have known about aspirin for years since chewing the bark of the willow tree BUT pharma knows that the more it pushes aspirin the more danger there is of damage to the stomach ----------- They have another pill to solve the problem!!!!

Win - Win

Martin said...

Sheep on Drugs

(word verification is 'addictub'...)

Bill Sticker said...

Hey, advertise drugs as 'tested on animals'. Why not? All those 'concerned' people could make the 'ethical' choice to die of a previously treatable condition (Antibiotics were tested on animals, yes?). Think of the savings to the NHS. Think of the boost to the Funeral trade and the economy.

Go for it, say I.

Leg-iron said...

View from the S - I was thinking about a wild-eyed scientist in a blood-spattered lab coat leering over a pile of kitten heads. It's as true as any of the tobacco pack images.

Leg-iron said...

Xopher - I've noticed that almost every pill includes the ailment it's supposed to cure among its side effects. So if it doesn't work, they can claim it did work, that's just a side effect.

Leg-iron said...

Martin - oh, now I have to get a headlamp hat.

Leg-iron said...

Bill - think of all those nicotine patches too...

Electrofags aren't tested on animals which means they are about the only thing activists can't object to. Isn't life strange?

JuliaM said...

"Think of the savings to the NHS. Think of the boost to the Funeral trade and the economy."

Think of the boost to the UK's average IQ!

James Higham said...

Yep, I don't touch medicines or flu jabs or any of that. Healthier.

Leg-iron said...

JuliaM - Yes, it might get into double figures!

James - A friend of mine once declared that the reason he had no fillings was that he never visited dentists. He has better teeth than me and his teeth don't pick up Radio 1.

Makes you wonder.

the truth-hunter - by crudyard ripling said...

back in the days when men were men and animals were animals, there lived, by the great plains-of-aplenty, an all-seeing-caveman, who, in order to avail himself of that peculiar knowledge pertaining to all in the world that was good, set about observing the wholesome health-enhancing habits of the animals, and studying their many and various moves - paying especial attention to their manner of munching and scrunching of the many and various alimentary items which did abound on god's glorious earth. now, one pre-historic day, a highly agile hypothesis having cantered across his monochromatic mind, the wily old all-seeing-caveman conjectured to himself that, in dietary terms, that which was clearly conducive to the well-being of the animals, might well not be too bad for him, and so, holding this single solvent thought in his hairy-old-head, the all-seeing-caveman commenced forthwith (inasmuch as a hairy-old-all-seeing-caveman could) to conduct extensive and profound research into the essential biological matter-at-hand...

...but, to expedite the telling of this tale, not-to-mention abridge a marathon narrative comprising some truly gut-to-goolie-chilling and emetically-expressive episodes, it is my duty, as your faithful informer of events, to report that, to his gob-smacking and eternal chagrin, the all-seeing-caveman was duly choked to ascertain that the many and various animals were, by-and-large, accustomed to consuming a most varied and balanced bunch of crap, much of it of their own production, and, in a calmly considered moment of instinctively induced inner enlightenment, it thus dawned upon the exclusively educated all-seeing-old-caveman, that, in light of the completely catalytic, nay catatonic, circumstances arrayed around him, the only reasonable and indeed appropriate reaction for him to make, in respect of the findings deriving from his scrupulously thorough investigations, would be to introduce to the animals all the many and various naturally and unnaturally-occurring compounds of creation, with which they had never previously had the unsolicited pleasure of being acquainted, and, by way of reciprocating results, force the animals to eat them...

...and this, my dear children, is how the miracle of modern medical scientific method was born.

opinions powered by