Latest PETA game wants breast cancer animal testing to go tits up

Bravo!
PETA can suck it!

You think? This has been obvious for a long time.

I may be generalizing here, but it seems to be that's a very common attribute of animal activists. I met some of them online (particularly in places where animals are concerned) and I thought they were insane. They would advocate death/torture/dismemberment for people who do things even as mild as scaring their cats with monster masks.

PETA is, of course, probably among the most extreme, and they definitely care more about animals than humans (look up their history; they have supported/funded terrorist acts before). Nonetheless, humans suddenly became more important when it's one of their members, particularly high ranking members. Take, for example, their senior vice president, Mary Beth Sweetland, who takes insulin, which PETA is against because it is tested on animals.

Her argument for the hypocrisy? It's important for her to be alive so that she can save animals.

Are these guys gods now? Geeze people do your own research.

Seeing your avatar makes me want to punch you in the face

seeing the name makes me want to punch him in the face. (FYI, i don't have problems with other cody's!)

But she says that's so she can be around for the animals!

Bullshit.

Hey now, that's not entirely true. Insulin was developed by testing on dogs, but that was ages ago (in Canada!) Now it's made synthetically. I hate PETA as much, no WAAAAAYY more, than most people, and your point is still valid: she wouldn't be alive if not for testing on dogs, but they don't do it any more.

The entire animal rights movement is rife with hypocrisy. They don't eat meat because animals die, but I'll bet my last dollar that they eat wheat harvested by combines and drive cars, both of which are also responsible for animal deaths.

Don't forget, most of them wear clothes (some are nudist), most of which are made by sewing machines (some are handmade), most of which run on dead dinosaurs (some run on orphan blood).

Much hypocrisy.

Amen.

I would point out that 150 years ago in this country, blacks had less rights than horses, so that statement isn't as out there as you would like to think. Also, to all the people that keep referring to P&T's Bullshit: Yeah, that show is bullshit. As in they are full of shit. They must use Rush Limbaugh's fact-checker... And I'm not just referring to that episode. I have no idea where they come up with some of the shit they spew (well, he, but whatever) out of their mouths. Their show is as transparent as their act, if you do, oh, 3 minutes or so of research.

Yes, But Black people are just that, People! Horses are another species entirely. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence all refer to PEOPLE when talking about rights. And for your information, Rush would probably hate them because they are Atheists. Also one of the first things I found on Google when researching PETA is a site called PETA Kills Animals, recounting all the animals they have killed that have been put in their care. Over 95% of them have been put down by PETA itself, so you're telling me that all these animals needed to die?

Upon first glance, I saw:
"Yes, But Black people are just that, Horses!"

I feel so awful.

What?? Black people aren't horses? But I've been...I've got these stables and...oh my god...I'm a terrible person!

srsly, that old ass joke isn't funny in any of the other 100 peta articles you post it in.

Then how would you test them, if you're so smart?

On humans, the same way they do it now. The drug companies are more aware than anyone else how pointless animal testing is. They know the only real first trial is on humans anyway.

Let's hear you say (type?) the same thing if a member of your immediate family has cancer, and the only cure / medication comes from products tested for safety on lab rats.

...Of course, you can try that lovely new "cure", that hasn't been proven to have no side effects but hey, it's not been tested on animals so it's good, right?

Douche.

re: testing on humans: Where are you going to find humans that are going to do first line testing? The testing you're reffering to is second or third line testing, after having a great deal of tests on rats in order to make the chance of causing death or serious side effects smaller.

www.petakillsanimals.com

STFU tard

Ok Smartass. Then what do you suggest we test it on? Illegal Immigrants? Cloned humans? "Volunteers"? Shut my uninformed mouth... why don't you read up and check petey's comment about insulin. Tested on animals, then humans = Success. Second, All sorts of useless drugs are tested in the world today that are fatal in humans and still pass FDA standards, which I find are the lowest standards possible. Thus why they are not available in all countries. But there are also a lot of drugs that have benefited humans that stem from animal testing like insulin. I don't think it's the animal testing that is wrong but the fact that Pharma companies constantly invent new shit that no one needs and at times does not help at all and are then tested on animals unnecessarily.

Speak to some Cancer and MS patients who would spend enormous amounts of money on drugs to keep them pain free, alive and coherent when all they need to do is light up some pot. Which has been proven to be successful.. and don;t give me the "smoke kills" attitude cause there are other ways that don't require a flame to administer it. Again, I don't think animal testing is bad but I do think all these useless/harmful drug inventions are unnecessary when there are holistic options and Include pot amongst that which don't require to be tested on animals. But some do.

Why is this topic being discussed on Joystiq?

Tauntauns are animals too.

So basically your argument is that the entire community of scientists and doctors who test drugs on animals are really just a bunch of people that want to torture animals, and figured that going through a decade of post-secondary education was the best way to cover up their secret sadistic tendencies.

You honestly, HONESTLY, don't see any flaws in that logic? You seriously believe 100% that the community knows very well that the tests are meaningless and they're just doing it to hurt puppies? Like, really?

I'm trying to put myself in your shoes: I'm imagining that I believe that all these scientists are seriously just there to harm animals. That's all they do, that's all they've ever wanted to do. My brain is actually rejecting this imaginary scenario. That's how fucking stupid it is: My imagination is rejecting your reality.

Anyways: Video games - who likes 'em?

@Stupid PETA person

And what if those people died, what then? The reason we test medicines on animals is that if it is harmful, a person doesn't have to die. Plus human testing is only the last stage of testing, you need to test something like this a lot before you can release it. Also those people who died were small in number to those who did not, and the corruption is not with the testing process but with the FDA.

Woohoo! I was hoping somebody would stand up for PETA's ideals just so I could watch them get SLAPPED THE FUCK DOWN. Why are all these goddam animal lovers so angry anyways? Jesus, go hug a squirrel or something.

Do you know how they create vaccines? They use eggs, chicken eggs. So lets say there is a disease coming and it has the potential to kill millions of people. BUT WAIT! We can't use those eggs because of the poor little chicks, I guess those millions of people have to suffer and die.

And do some research from somewhere other than an extremist politically motivated group of nutters. Many animals have evolved in the same way as humans, and as such are very useful small-scale versions of how our bodies work. Hell, considering that there are a load of medicines that are prescribed for the same problems in both humans and animals, I'd go as far as to say that we're more than similar enough for

Yes, in many ways it's cruel (but the unnecessary cruelty claimed by PETA zealots is either completely rare or doesn't exist), but humans ARE more important than animals, so it's a completely necessary evil that we'll just have to put up with until science can gradually come up with working systems to replace them. Which we haven't yet. Not for everything, at least. We can use human blood to test anti-fever drugs rather than rabbits, but we can't exactly clone human organs and hang them in simulated living systems, independent of a human host, and test the effects of disease and drugs that way.

Not yet, anyway. It's either going to be that or computer models. Give it time.

I think it's ironic that you talk about P&T not fact checking and then you spew shit like this. Where did you get your info? Probably PETAs website. The fact remains that they benefit from animal research (see their vice pres) and they put animals asleep at their HQ, yet they protest research like this and animal shelters that adopt out a lot more animals than they do. And those kill numbers are available from various public records.

How about you do your own research that doesn't involve looking at completely pro-PETA sources? The fact that you don't think that animal research benefits humanity is beyond me.

Some of the drugs you listed for the failure of animal testing are not accurate:
- Thalidomide: it was NOT properly tested on animals (no pregnant animals were used).
- Rezulin: it was tested on animals and failed. Dr. Gueriguian at the FDA refused to approve the drug, he was removed from his post, and the drug was approved.
- Inocor: not enough animal testing was done (side effects didn't appear in the animals first tested).

Teratogen appears to be a term (not a drug) defined as: "an agent, such as a virus, a drug, or radiation, that causes malformation of an embryo or fetus." I can't find any reference to teratogen as a drug itself.

You are probably right on:
Oraflex and Opren (these are the same drug. Why did you list it twice? Are you trying to inflate your list?)
Flenac (Fenclofenac)
Butazolidin (Phenylbutazone)
Cylert (Pemoline)
Propulsid (Cisapride)
Baycol (Cerivastatin)

"Do a little research before you open your uninformed mouth next time."
How about you do a little research? Everything in my post I found with less than twenty of minutes of research.
Research is not copying and pasting from your favorite animal rights website.

"among many others"
Your list provided only six valid examples. There are over 90 times than number in just the "A" page of the FDA's approved drug list. "Among many others" is a cop-out that you used because you have a lack of evidence for your position.

"Not to mention all the "testing" that is just pure torture, that they don't even really claim serves a purpose."
You played your hand too soon and revealed yourself as a fundamentalist and a lunatic.

A quote from PETA president Ingrid Newkirk:
"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” - September 1989 issue of Vogue

According to the WHO, 2.1 million people died of aids in 2007.

@U U D D L R L R B A SELECT START

Because these are the kind of people who replace love and affection into animals instead of humans because they are afraid of social rejection. So instead they invest it into an animal that they feel is more loyal of a friend that a real person because humans are smart enough to push back if they feel like they are being controlled. An animal isn't going to say shit. I have met a lot of people like this and have asked them if they wanted to maybe take a vacation to somewhere like Cancun and get laid to which they respond "Oh but what is going to do without me? I can't leave him/her alone". You can cherish ur pet and love it but just keep in mind that it is an animal that has a shorter life span than you and that it is not there to shield you from interacting with other human beings.

I don't need to do any research to conclue that you're a buffoon. Get a job, hippie.