Latest PETA game wants breast cancer animal testing to go tits up
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jul 17th 2009 at 8:00AM }
The lesson in here somewhere is that PETA believes researching and testing breast cancer drugs on animals is "wrong." We're guessing the 192,370 women who'll be diagnosed with the disease this year would disagree, so perhaps it's best to enjoy this method without subscribing to the madness.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
PR0F3TA @ Jul 17th 2009 8:08AM
kinda random.
this mini game should be in the next Brain Age: Men Version
Gradoman @ Jul 17th 2009 8:17AM
I guess you'd find it less funny if your own mom was diagnosed with breast cancer.
LaughingTarget @ Jul 17th 2009 8:18AM
It's a sad day when a person is gullible enough to be swayed by a game.
SF Legend @ Jul 17th 2009 8:25AM
Solution: Test the drugs on peta members.
ronEbear @ Jul 17th 2009 10:01AM
Bravo!
PETA can suck it!
Matthew @ Jul 17th 2009 8:27AM
I just don't understand peta, they will never be taken seriously, people should be at the top of the list then other life, I think they care more about animals than people
MarioSpitza @ Jul 17th 2009 7:42PM
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.
wicko @ Jul 17th 2009 8:28AM
PETA needs to lie down and die. Millions of people wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for animal testing, including a large amount of PETA members.
Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on PETA was quite an eye opener.
squeehunter @ Jul 17th 2009 6:56PM
Are these guys gods now? Geeze people do your own research.
Cody @ Jul 17th 2009 8:29AM
Seeing that screenshot makes me want to play that game.
deaftly @ Jul 17th 2009 10:44AM
Seeing your avatar makes me want to punch you in the face
Sly @ Jul 17th 2009 1:26PM
seeing the name makes me want to punch him in the face. (FYI, i don't have problems with other cody's!)
petey @ Jul 17th 2009 8:31AM
PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland uses insulin for her Type A diabetes, which is developed by tests on dogs.
Hypocrisy much?
AsherR @ Jul 17th 2009 10:24AM
But she says that's so she can be around for the animals!
Bullshit.
Sinister Rouge @ Jul 17th 2009 12:30PM
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.
Fullmetal Salchemist @ Jul 17th 2009 5:50PM
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.
Dilbert @ Sep 29th 2009 2:23PM
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).
petey @ Jul 17th 2009 8:32AM
PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland uses insulin for her Type A diabetes, which is developed by tests on dogs.
Hypocrisy much?
ronEbear @ Jul 17th 2009 10:02AM
Much hypocrisy.
U U D D L R L R B A SELECT START @ Jul 17th 2009 8:32AM
Thats cool. PETA vice president can still use animal products to maintain her health because: "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” But all you other women, what the hell are you doing with your life? You can just roll over and die riddled with cancer. Oh if you will excuse me now I have to go gas some dogs.
http://www.spinachcruelty.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1730
I seriously dispise this organization.
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jul 17th 2009 12:01PM
I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”
Yeah because this flash game that clearly states that cure for cancer is wrong is completely going to save the lives of animals.
PETA goes beyond the pathetic and immoral.
Zac @ Jul 17th 2009 8:35AM
Respect animals.
Though I do agree that PETA definitely go too far with their opinions.
Wild Bill @ Jul 17th 2009 8:42AM
The game just makes me like breasts even more, and want to do everything humanly possible to look after them.
James Lockwood @ Jul 17th 2009 8:44AM
PETA are bat-s*it insane... and, I mean, real crazy. People who haven't checked their history just think of them as looking out for the welfare of animals. They don't realise how so far out there they are. Type in PETA in Google and find out the s*it they support, and statements they've made.
WREturns @ Jul 17th 2009 8:55AM
Remember the other day when we talked about "specialty groups" being worse than the problem they're trying to solve. Yeah, this is the kind of shit we were referring to.
XBL: xGeneral DEATHx PSN: Deeth82 @ Jul 17th 2009 11:15AM
Amen.
Rob @ Jul 17th 2009 8:58AM
Basically PETA opposes all modern medicine research and would not mind seeing millions die if it didn't hurt the poor, fluffy animals. Also they compare themselves to the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, which to me sounds way out there. Also they give money to people who blow up animal testing labs. They are a bunch of loons and I would encourage you guys to look up Penn and Teller's show Bulls**t, the PETA episode.
mietha CAG @ Jul 17th 2009 9:11AM
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.
Rob @ Jul 17th 2009 9:21AM
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?
dark_inchworm (on Steam!) dark inchworm (on XBL!) @ Jul 17th 2009 10:10AM
Upon first glance, I saw:
"Yes, But Black people are just that, Horses!"
I feel so awful.
Henry @ Jul 17th 2009 10:23AM
What?? Black people aren't horses? But I've been...I've got these stables and...oh my god...I'm a terrible person!
JoeTheBlow @ Jul 17th 2009 8:59AM
People Eating Tasty Animals.
John @ Jul 17th 2009 10:05AM
srsly, that old ass joke isn't funny in any of the other 100 peta articles you post it in.
captainprotonx @ Jul 17th 2009 9:04AM
If eating animals is so wrong, why did god make them so tasty?
mietha CAG @ Jul 17th 2009 9:05AM
It is wrong, moron, because it is pointless. Drugs do not act the same way in humans as they do in animals. Animal drug testing serves absolutely no purpose than to get some sadistic fuck's rocks off. Thalidomide, Teratogen, Oraflex, Opren (Benoxaprofen), Flenac (Fenclofenac), Butazolidin (Phenylbutazone), Cylert (Pemoline), Rezulin (Troglitazone), Propulsid (Cisapride), Inocor (Amrinone), and Baycol (Cerivastatin), among many others, all passed extensive animal testing, but proved harmful, and, in some cases, fatal, in humans. Not to mention all the "testing" that is just pure torture, that they don't even really claim serves a purpose. Do a little research before you open your uninformed mouth next time.
Rob @ Jul 17th 2009 9:07AM
Then how would you test them, if you're so smart?
mietha CAG @ Jul 17th 2009 9:15AM
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.
Samo @ Jul 17th 2009 9:19AM
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.
Samo @ Jul 17th 2009 9:21AM
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.
John @ Jul 17th 2009 9:21AM
www.petakillsanimals.com
STFU tard
EMaster @ Jul 17th 2009 9:22AM
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?
waynski1457 @ Jul 17th 2009 9:22AM
Tauntauns are animals too.
Kersh @ Jul 17th 2009 9:24AM
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?
Rob @ Jul 17th 2009 9:25AM
@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.
U U D D L R L R B A SELECT START @ Jul 17th 2009 9:33AM
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.
Rob @ Jul 17th 2009 10:05AM
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.
Markusdragon @ Jul 17th 2009 10:15AM
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.
AsherR @ Jul 17th 2009 10:34AM
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.
Spinfusor @ Jul 17th 2009 10:53AM
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.
EMaster @ Jul 17th 2009 11:30AM
@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.