A.L.F..animal setting free front?

I'm all for not hurting animals for things resembling shampoo and cosmetics but these extremists believe in no animal conducting tests what so ever.
BUT.would they refuse something approaching an anti-cancer drug that could save thier duration or that of thier child if it had be tested on animals.
Who they have the courage of thier convictions to vote no

Answers:
It is often alledged that adjectives forms of animal testing could be replaced by other medium. However other means are normally left imprecise.

There are computer simulation techniques to try to select appropriate molecules but adjectives they do is whittle dosn the list of probable compounds which might work. Some of them are int he public domain (look at http://www.grid.org/download/gold/downlo. soem are complex private modelling tools.

But they are not comprhensive. I hold friends who work for the Pharmaceutical Industry * medics, all minus exception say in attendance is no way they would trust a topical compund that hadn't been tested back use. They are open in the order of how it can be tested, but make the point that the human body is a complex workings, it cannot be simulated by computer, nor by cellular level trials. sometimes the side effecxts (and most compounds do hold side effects) are seen within other parts of the body than expected, or can
be more severe than predicted.

I don't think near is anyone who would condone testing of cosmetics and good looks products on animals (which are relativel easy to testing on human volunteers, after all skin cell can be effectively tested, but pharamceutical compounds?

There may be a day when such compounds can be tested entirely surrounded by a computer, but I don't think its any where on earth near here (yet). Simply we do not have adequate information to create a realistic simulation model. Even so I'd still be fundamentally reluctant to be the first user of such a compound.
The thing is pete, these drugs could enjoy produced using alternative methods (no animals involved) but the government refuse to fund that because of vested interests by the drug companies.

It's sad and it is why various of these extremists are driven to do what they do. which is reality is nil compared to the horrible torture inflicted on these poor animals.

But please remember 90% of animal activists are harmonious people and don't believe contained by resorting to terror procedure.
Man this is one of the roughes questions I've red so far. In this overnight case the scientists are faced next to a dilemma: they should choose whether they will harm an animal by carrying out tests the drugs on them, or harm innocent folks with the test.
I can say to adjectives the animal protectors: think more or less it what is better? Your child diing because a medicine be not properly tested in mortgage (or your child is actually a assessment subject in some way) or they trial the chemicals on rats and other animals instead.
It is also interesting that sometimes animal tests prove that a drug is ok, still it's effect is different in bag of people (or of late some individuals).
I think that the meds shall be tested on living creatures (both animals and people), after other conducting tests possibilities where used and they would not provide more info.
On the other mitt, if we are strict, we can say that the microbes which we want to kill next to the medicine is also a living entry, should we protect the bacteria too?
ALF are a nouns of psycho crackpots. They'd rather slaughter someone or let someone die than see an animal used for carrying out tests. Every movement has it's extremists and their mete out, whatever it is, outweighs adjectives other factors.
I would not want a drug or surgical technique used on me if it have only be tested on a cell culture or a computer programme.
Come off it man, look at it this path, If my Mum was dying and the mode to save her be by harming animals, i would blissfully go into a pasture and kill every cow,pig,sheep,dog,ferret,mouse and any more you could construe of to save her. Fair satisfactory, testing cosmetics on animals is damaged, but when it comes to curing diseases or even preventing them in the first place, Im adjectives for experimenting on them.


Related Questions and Answers
Whats the difference between a double and single stack of xtc?
poeple make this distinction when the E pill is twice as thick equaling to two E pills. in veracity the double stacks contain LESS ecstasy and more cuts and fillers in it making it actualy more harmful where on earth as a single stack is a regular E pill which...

The Human Heart how does it work?
How does the hearts two pumps act as one? What is each pumps role within circulation of the blood. How is it all coordinated? What impact could a clot in a leg vein hold on a humans cardiovascular system? In humans, the function of the right side of the heart is to collect...

  • what is the connotation of non-therapeutic prescription writing?
  • How do I volunteer at the Hospital?
  • Can becoming a ARNP first promote accidental of declaration of guilt into medical arts school?